And still all shit.

surely the bots doing their own version of the industrial revolution is going to be good this time

Riddle me this:
if LLMs never go beyond 90% or even 95% accuracy, why would anyone pay money for them? In areas where it's "good enough" there isn't any incentive to use it in the first place, and in areas where it's not it will never replace humans.

*So who is dumb enough to pay for the costs*?
>inb4 but it's cheap right now
>right now

>>108274275
even 99% accuracy is still three orders of magnitude below industrial safety standards

no one would trust their lives to an airline pilot who arrives safely 99% of the time

>>108274294
Well, at least they burn horrifically to a crisp if they do. You cannot even torture the fucking LLM.

>>108274214
Your levels don't mean anything. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else.

>>108274275
Humans can barely break 75% accuracy. AI is already better than a human in every way—cheaper. Smarter. More reliable. Face it. AI is the future and you are a Left Behind Luddite.

>>108274308
>Humans can barely break 75% accuracy.
Ladies and gents - this is a double-digit IQ poster.

>>108274308
You must be part of the 25% then. Around these parts, we call that being retarded.

>>108274214
LLM error rates approach 100% for any task a human hasn't already successfully completed and registered with the LLM.
AI is just a textbook that rolls a dice on presenting human-verified information or complete horseshit.
A replacement for the retarded only, and no better than any solved/automated software - a lot worse actually unless given guardrails.

>>108274214
>quick move goalpost they catching up
Keep the hype going loosers.