Incorrect. People are capable of learning by observation, introspection, and reasoning. LLMs can only be trained by rote example.
Hallucinations are, in fact, an unavoidable property of the technology - something which is not true for people. [0]
Also, you don't know very many people, including yourself, if you think that confabulation and self-deception aren't integral parts of our core psychological makeup. LLMs work so well because they inherit not just our logical thinking patterns, but our faults and fallacies.
it's not a person, it doesn't hallucinate or have imagination
it's simply unreliable software, riddled with bugs
It is, though. We have numerous studies on why hallucinations are central to the architecture, and numerous case studies by companies who have tried putting them in control loops! We have about 4 years of examples of bad things happening because the trigger was given to an LLM.
And we have tens of thousands of years of shared experience of "People Were Wrong and Fucked Shit Up". What's your point?
Again, my point isn't that LLMs are infallible; it's that they only need to be better than their competition, and their competition sucks.
But human systems that don't fuck shit up are short-lived, rare, and fragile, and they've only become a potential - not a reality - in the last century or so.
The rest of history is mostly just endless horrors, with occasional tentative moments of useful insight.
True, but no more true than it is if you replace the antecedent with "people".
Saying that the tools make mistakes is correct. Saying that (like people) they can never be trained and deployed such that the mistakes are tolerable is an awfully tall order.
History is paved with people who got steamrollered by technology they didn't think would ever work. On a practical level AI seems very median in that sense. It's notable only because it's... kinda creepy, I guess.