alt Hacker News> People who acknowledge the quality problem, but think they can deal with it by applying more AI to the output.
Brute Force: if it doesn't work, you're just not using enough.
What if they're right though?
Replies
There are other places where some process has an error rate and you make up for that error rate by doing the work more than once and then comparing results. For example, I've heard in a video that satellites and other space craft often have 3 or 4 processors and compare the results to make sure there were no errors due to radiation. Similarly, we have RAID arrays that store data multiple times because disks can fail. So, even if AI has a failure rate of like 20%, maybe you can make up for that by running the same prompt multiple times with slight variations or with different models, comparing the results and choosing the best.
I've seen it turn right in business contexts. Sometimes you can even lower your standard of "good enough" and find quantity has a quality all its own.
But it requires taste and engineering to do it right, and on the right things. It'll be an interesting few years.
they are right. bad output is user error. there, am i suiting the role appropriately? i do like 65% believe that, fwiw.
They're right until they're not.
It does not have to be brushed away as "brute force" necessarily. We can, and do, build more reliable systems out of less reliable components. In fact, most industrial engineering accepts some defect rate and builds margins around it.
Software is no different. Even without AI, you already have buggy compilers and buggy OSes and buggy libraries. You just tend to accept the risk because you have some idea of what the failure modes are and can work around it or manage the risk in some other way (buy literal insurance.)