> Again, you're continuing to compare apples and oranges from different professions and applying it here which it is nonsensical. The unpredictable behaviour of LLMs like ChatGPT tells us that not only it is non-deterministic but it cannot be trusted at all and in that context, it always requires humans to check it and for the case of how reliable it is it needs much more experiments and scientific methods by others to attest that.

Where's the science on this I need reams and reams of hard data and several scientific papers to prove this because nothing exists in reality until there's a scientific papers written about it.

No I'm kidding don't actually give me science on this. Everything you said is a conclusion easily arrived at with just intuition, experience and common sense. You violate your own principles everytime you make a statement without a citation to a rigorous long winded scientific paper.

You realize witnesses are non deterministic too? Yet a judge only needs one to convict a murderer. Non determinism doesn't mean jack in this Convo.

You talk about medical professionals laughing in my face do you mean the 17 professionals mentioned in the article who for 10 years failed to diagnose a simple issue? You think anybody cares for them laughing?

>What does Einstein speculating his equations have to do with showing how an AI system that is non-deterministic is also reliable? There are different methods in showing this reliability as I have explained already and you bringing that up is an irrelevant distraction.

It's relevant. You're just excited thinking the conversation is going in some strange direction of ultimate statistical rigor as the only valid topic of conversation.

I bring up Einstein to show you we can talk about well believed and highly esteemed topics that have zero statistical verification and it is valid from the standpoint of scientists and "professionals".

I'm saying we don't need that level of rigor to talk about things that involve common sense.

Science has weaknesses. The first aspect of it that's weak is it's fucking slow and expensive. The second thing is that a fundamental point of science is that nothing can proven to be true. Statistics does not have the ability for proving anything. In the end you're still speculating with science.

>The entire point IS conclusively showing reliability which you using ONE paper with a low sample size you used for that as the basis of that claim is laughably insufficient for clinicians to draw an overall conclusion to show how ChatGPT is more reliable than doctors to the point where it is safe for medical advice or completely replacing doctors (which isn't going to happen anyway).

And I'm saying your entire point is wrong. My point is right. You need to follow my point which is this:

I can come to very real real conclusions about chatGPT and about LLMs without the need of resorting to science and statistical samples to verify statements in the same way you can make conclusions about your mom and her status as an intelligent being.

Also I never said chatGPT is overall more reliable then doctors. I think of it as the precursor to the thing that will replace them. That's a highly reasonable speculation that can be made with zero science needed.

The anecdotal data of 17 doctors failing here is valid supporting evidence for that speculation.