If an LLM can't be left to do mowing by itself, but a human will have to closely monitor and intervene at every its steps, then it's just a super fast predictive keyboard, no?

But what if the human only has to intervene once every 100 hours, that’s a huge productivity boost.

The point is you don't know when of those 100 hours that is, so you still need to monitor the full 100 hour time span.

Can still be a boost. But definitely not the same magnitude.

And one might also wonder still if we need a general language model to mow the grass or just a simpler solution towards to problem of driving a mower over a fixed property line automatically. Something you could probably solve with wwii era technology, honestly.

Obviously not. I want legislation which imposes liability on OpenAI and similar companies if they actively market their products for use in safety-critical fields and their product doesn’t perform as advertised.

If a system is providing incorrect medical diagnoses, or denying services to protected classes due to biases in the training in the training data, someone should be held accountable.

Personal responsibility, not legal liability. In the way a child can be responsible for a pet.

Chatgpt was trained on benchmarks and user opinions - "throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks".

Responsibility means penalties for making mistakes, and, more importantly, having an awareness of those penalties (that informs its decision-making).

They would want to, if they thought they could, because doing so would unblock a ton of valuable use cases. A tax preparation or financial advisor AI would do huge numbers for any company able to promise that its advice can be trusted.