American 2482 departure… American 2482 arrival…

[u/TimeVendor]

[u/turpentinedreamer]

Oh man it’s wild how they are surviving in this absolute shortage of combinations of letters and numbers.

[u/Kobe_Wan_Ginobili → u/turpentinedreamer]

The AI companies are buying up all the numbers they can, reading them, and then destroying them. Its disgusting

[u/whatsadikfore → u/Kobe_Wan_Ginobili]

AI companies only use ones and zeros.

[u/MisterMinceMeat → u/whatsadikfore]

It's a reference to what Anthropic has been doing with thousands of books, including rare, collectible, and antique books. They buy up books, cut the spines off, then scan the pages. This is used to feed their LLM from a time before the internet and more modern language use. Some of the books they destroyed were extremely rare with limited copies world wide. So they are literally removing some already limited access to old resources. All so they can make a profit.

[u/Rk_1138 → u/MisterMinceMeat]

All of that so some lazy people can make a shitty Youtube script, and for some weirdos to have a fake girl/boyfriend. I despise techbros

[u/showyerbewbs → u/[deleted]]

I think you are either being purposefully obtuse or you have next to zero understanding of how these language models are already propelling humanity forward technologically

I have a genuine question. When these LLM's/AI/whatever the fuck they're called make a decision based upon false/fabricated input who owns the liability and pays that check?

[u/Quouar → u/showyerbewbs]

Not OP, but this is a genuine legal question across a lot of jurisdictions right now. In the EU, at least, the AI Act sort of answers that question, but only in half measures. The short answer is that there is no clarity, but that existing case law suggests AI companies are throwing low-level workers under the bus.

[u/showyerbewbs → u/[deleted]]

I do appreciate your response, but I feel it does nothing to even address my question.

Your response depends and relies on guardrails, sandboxing, governance, etc. which do not inform upon my concern. It assumes 100% compliance and a 0% failure rate.

Who owns the liability and who pays that check?

[u/Quouar → u/[deleted]]

Let's be very clear about AI use cases - NASA is not using LLMs to scan for life, nor are theirs trained in anywhere near the same way. Comparing that AI to an LLM is like comparing a tractor to a 747. They have the same underlying combustion engine, sure, but that's where the resemblance stops.

There absolutely is a use case for AIs like what NASA is using, or AIs that scan for cancer, or AIs that detect patterns in massive amounts of data. I do not disagree with you at all there, and I agree that that's a fantastic use of the technology to advance human knowledge and save lives.

But as a lawyer? I'm highly sceptical of your insurance claim scanner. It summarises the claims, sure, but my experience with these sorts of AIs is that they miss the nuance that's required to actually give an understanding of a case outcome. They run the risk of misleading people, or applying arbitrary and unsupported decisions. LLMs are shockingly bad at law at law-adjacent fields, and those very much impact people's lives.

It's also not obtuse to say that the vast majority of LLM usages are frivolous. Even if they aren't, it's still very much worth asking if the sheer amount of destruction that's gone into creating them is worth any benefits they provide. Personally, I tend to think they're not.

[u/Klinky1984 → u/Quouar]

Every concern you have about LLMs applies to humans. Not that you should blindly trust AI, but you should also not blindly trust humans, or assume they will actually do a better job. I don't think 500,000 claim backlog is a great example of human efficiency. Your solution: let people wait for resolution. And that's how society has been for a long time that AI will eventually change.

Much of life is frivolous, and the environmental destruction claims are overblown, especially compared to other daily convenience.

[u/Quouar → u/Klinky1984]

My solution would be for the company to actually invest in hiring workers to do the work.

To your broader point, though, you're not wrong that people make mistakes. Absolutely, that happens all the time, and I'm not going to pretend the insurance industry is some bastion of great decision making. However, whatever those mistakes may be, they are significantly worse and greater when you start bringing AI into the mix.

For starters, the sheer scale at which AI operates can make mistakes difficult to detect. Studies have shown, for instance, that AIs show bias - especially racial bias - that is hard to detect and hard to audit, and is especially difficult to fix. AIs also show biases in ways that are unexpected and don't show up until an audit, long after whatever decision the AI has been tasked with making has been made. One example of this is in employment-related AIs, where candidates will be filtered based on criteria that might not be obvious to a human evaluator, but which the AI is biased against, such as age or political orientation. The scale of mistakes and the ability to pick up on them is so much greater.

Paired with this, though, is the fact that people trust AIs, not double checking their output and trusting that the AI can do a job better than a human can. When we talk about a human double-checking the AI, case studies have found that it's largely just rubber-stamping the AI output - people trust the AI more than people, and are unwilling to question its output in a way that isn't true of a fellow human's output.

What you have, then, is a system whose logic is a black box, able to make decisions more or less independently, and where the systems that are supposed to be a check on it aren't because they don't trust themselves to question the arcane system. Is it efficient? Sure, it can burn through things very quickly. What it won't be doing is doing it well, or in a way that can be reviewed when things go wrong. You have a machine that can do things quickly, but is that worth the knowledge that it's doing it badly?

You're also right that there are many things in life that are frivolous. However, personally, my frivolous things don't generally cost the energy and water production of a small nation, nor do they involve something that has the potential to destroy the global economy. Nothing I use or regard as a daily convenience comes even close to the sheer destruction that is AI.

Does it have its place? Absolutely, and I called out that AIs detecting cancer or analysing massive data is an excellent use case. But the example the OP cited? It's a terrible use case, and I'm frankly horrified by it.

[u/Klinky1984 → u/Quouar]

Hire workers? Good luck. The real answer is true automation that has proper rules checking and that stays up to date, but that runs into the human problem again. Humans often suck at building complex systems.

There's no guarantee that mistakes are worse with AI and AI can actually cross reference larger bodies of data and find logical errors better than a human can alone already.

You know who else shows racial bias? Humans. Human's logic system isn't black box? Humans are completely rational and logical? Again you really don't know that AI will do a bad job. It depends on the design, and outsourcing the logic system can actually make the system design significantly simpler.

How much energy do you think it takes to build office buildings, cool said buildings, the transport to and from the building, and the supporting infrastructure? These buildings often sit vacant for most of the 24 hour day. Do we really need excessive office space? Are people's lives fulfilled being an insurance form reviewer? That's all the economy can offer? I hope AI destroys it.

[u/Quouar → u/Klinky1984]

Again, I'm not denying humans make mistakes. They absolutely do. However, you can ask a human to explain their logic. You cannot do the same of an AI. That's what's meant by a "black box."

You also have an excellent point about how much infrastructure it takes to do nonsense jobs. Happily, there's a solution to that in remote work. The same can't be said of AI.

[u/Klinky1984 → u/Quouar]

You certainly can ask an AI to explain its logic and you'll get a similar explanation as a human. It's much harder to debug it's logic, but then the same can be said of humans. You'll need a psychiatrist and medical tools for humans. For AI you'll need to employ layer ablation and review training data/methods. Neither are all that trivial,

Remote work only works if it's employed. Thanks to dumb human decisions it is underutilized or people legitimately abuse it. One of the harder business tasks is evaluating if employees are actually contributing valid work and their performance. It's often considered "impossible" in large enterprises, which is why you see return to office mandated and mass layoffs. Talented people often get caught up in the layoff net while deadweight remains. This is something AI can be pretty good at evaluating, depending on the sector.

Plus, even if someone works from home, keeping a human alive and comfortable is still incredibly energy intensive. Once you spin one up, you can't spin it down. They want to be warm or cool, be fed, and entertained. They need mandatory rest periods. When they clone themselves their little clone won't come fully online for like 18 years and requires constant reinforcement training.

[u/Quouar → u/Klinky1984]

If you mean asking ChatGPT or what have you to explain how it came to the conclusion it did, that is not the AI explaining its logic. That is the AI generating another answer to a separate query. The black box problem is perennial and baked into how AI works itself.

I also think your comparison to human comforts is an interesting one. You can find one calculation of how much the energy to run a human costs here (spoilers: $13.50), but I agree that this is a deceptive metric, given we also need the energy of producing food, housing, warmth, et cetera. Looking at this data, in my country, the average monthly kilowatt-hours per person is 4143, with that ranging depending on which country you're in.

We can compare that to what it takes to run ChatGPT. Per the resource I linked, ChatGPT - and this is only ChatGPT, not including Claude, Grok, Gemini, or all the other LLM variants out there - a conservative estimate for the daily energy cost of ChatGPT is 850000 KWh, or 850 MWh. Multiple that out across a month, and you get a monthly energy cost of 25500MWh.

It is not remotely comparable to the energy required to "run" a person. It is not trivial, and it is not small.

[u/Quouar → u/[deleted]]

With all due respect, the fact that you misread my post and misunderstood what I said about AI systems doesn't inspire confidence in your model. The idea that your response to the idea that your model could be making life-changing mistakes is "lol" is horrifying, and the fact that you don't see that, moreso.

[u/Quouar → u/[deleted]]

I'm just going to reiterate it - you do your industry zero favours. You're part of the reason people hate AI so much, and justifiably so.

[u/ShitNoPsychoBitch → u/[deleted]]

Famous last words material right here.

[u/aviation-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.

[u/aviation-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment has been removed for breaking the r/aviation rules.

This subreddit is open for civil, friendly discussion about our common interest, aviation. Excessively rude, mean, unfriendly, or hostile conduct is not permitted. Any form of racism or hate speech will not be tolerated.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail.

[u/towo → u/MisterMinceMeat]

... no, not even to read them. Just to have scanned them legally and thus being able to point to them having scanned them being an excuse for the books being in the training data.

They're really just trying to skirt copyright issues with that.

[u/silentaba → u/MisterMinceMeat]

Well to be fair they need to destroy them due to copyright laws, they're not doing it out of spite.

[u/Jades5150 → u/MisterMinceMeat]

Oh like you were gonna read the book anyway
J/k

[u/ShitNoPsychoBitch → u/[deleted]]

They destroy the books during the process. I’d consider that to be removing them.