François Fleuret, Meta FAIR research scientist and University of Geneva professor, argues that pure AI systems outperform any human-AI collaboration on sophisticated reasoning tasks
Yaroslav Bulatov replied citing comparative advantage under finite AI energy limits.
#331François Fleuret@FRANCOISFLEURETWhat can a human communicate to an AI stronger than them: information to which they both have access, which is then not necessary, or information to which the user has privileged access, that is the human's internal thoughts.
1/2
François Fleuret@francoisfleuretSerious take: The optimistic "AI will not replace humans for sophisticated reasonning problems, the best will be collaboration" has no rationale of any sort. If AI > Human, then \forall alpha > 0, AI > (1-alpha)*AI + alpha*Human
This internal thoughts are either the results of the human's own reasoning, which are "worse" than those of a stronger AI, or idiosyncratic facts (e.g. what this human likes or wants).
So IMO there will be no "collaboration", only "armchair leadership".
2/2
François Fleuret@francoisfleuretWhat can a human communicate to an AI stronger than them: information to which they both have access, which is then not necessary, or information to which the user has privileged access, that is the human's internal thoughts. 1/2
@francoisfleuret There's an argument from comparative advantage. If the energy available to AI is finite, it's rational to leave low-value tasks to humans so that AI could focus it's limited energy on more high-value tasks -- https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/plentiful-high-paying-jobs-in-the
François Fleuret@francoisfleuretSerious take: The optimistic "AI will not replace humans for sophisticated reasonning problems, the best will be collaboration" has no rationale of any sort. If AI > Human, then \forall alpha > 0, AI > (1-alpha)*AI + alpha*Human