Why should any responsible person believe you? I'm serious. You assure us that you are properly supervising a tool that is famous for doing shockingly bad work at random times. The only way anyone could verify that is by watching you literally always.
We don't have a theory of LLMs that provides a basis on which to trust them. The people who create them do not test them in a way that passes muster with experts in the field of testing. Numerous articles by people at least as qualified as you cast strong doubt on the reliability of LLMs.
But you say "trust me!"
Stockton Rush assured us that his submersible was safe, despite warnings from experts. He also made noises about being responsible.
I'm responsible for my work and I don't need to prove that to you or anyone else except the people who pay me for my work.
The fact there is AI involved doesn't change the nature of the work. Engineers and coders are paid to produce functioning results, and thorough code review is sometimes but not always involved. None of that changes. Software developers make mistakes, regardless of whether there is an AI involved or not. So introducing AI literally changes nothing in terms of the validation chain.
If you're trying to prevent a Stockton Rush type personality from creating larger social problems, then you're talking about regulating the software industry presumably like how the Engineering industry is regulated. However again, that doesn't change anything about the tools, only who and how responsibility flows.
We don't have a theory of LLMs that provides a basis on which to trust them. The people who create them do not test them in a way that passes muster with experts in the field of testing. Numerous articles by people at least as qualified as you cast strong doubt on the reliability of LLMs.
But you say "trust me!"
Stockton Rush assured us that his submersible was safe, despite warnings from experts. He also made noises about being responsible.