Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 346 posts

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#311

Post by absurd1st »

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

You are essentially saying: AI occupies an unfamiliar category of behavior; human beings have not developed a mental model for it.

If we think of AI as a machine, it is stochastic, not deterministic. It breaks our cause-and-effect understanding of machines.

If we think of AI as a agency, it does not have goals or beliefs. It mimics goals, following a mathematical path to an optimal answer.

So, we are confused, frustrated, angry: "What the heck is this thing?!"

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#312

Post by tstrimple »

conductr wrote: post #305
tstrimple wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every good Brenda is precisely good because she checks her own work before shipping it. AI does not do this. A confident statement that's trivial to disprove. I use claude code to build and deploy services on my NAS. I can ask it to spin up a new container on my subdomain and make it available internal only or also available externally. It knows it has access to my Cloudflare API key. It knows I am running rootless…

You’ve switched contexts completely with your strawman. Meaning, you’ve pivot Brenda in finance to some technical/software engineer task. You’ve pointed the conversation specifically at a use case that AI is good at, writing code and solving those problems. The world at large is much more complex than helping you be a 10x engineer. To live up to the hype, it has to do this reliably for every vertical in a majority of…

You're moving goalposts. You claimed "AI" cannot verify results and that's trivially false. Claude code verifies results on a regular basis. You don't have a clue what you're talking about and are just pushing ignorant FUD.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#313

Post by lenkite »

quixoticaxolotl wrote: post #39

I find the contrast between two narratives around technology use so fascinating: 1. We advocate automation because people like Brenda are error-prone and machines are perfect. 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone. These aren't contradictions because we only advocate for automation in limited contexts: when the task is understandable, the execution is reliable, the pro…

> 2. We disavow AI because people like Brenda are perfect and the machine is error-prone.

Some of these Brenda types are actually, really perfect. Unless they are sick, they never make mistakes. Sure they are a small minority, but they do exist.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#314

Post by cwillu »

anonzzzies wrote: post #194
dsr_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two kinds of reliability: Machine reliability does the same thing the same way every time. If there's an error on some input, it will always make that error on that input, and somebody can investigate it and fix it, and then it will never make that error again. Human reliability does the job even when there are weird variances or things nobody bothered to check for. If the printer runs out of paper, the hum…

> . If the printer runs out of paper, the human goes to the supply cabinet and gets out paper and if there is no paper the human decides Sure, these humans exists, but the others, that I happen to encounter every day unfortunately, are the ones that go into broken mode immediately when something is unexpected. Today I ordered something they ran out of and the girl behind the counter just stared in The Deep not having…

“You get what you pay for” applies in spades to customer-facing staff.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#315

Post by cwillu »

pohl wrote: post #148
afandian wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was brought up on the refrain of "aren't computers silly, they do exactly what you tell them to do to the letter, even if it's not what you meant". That had its roots in computers mostly being programmable BASIC machines. Then came the apps and notifications, and we had to caveat "... when you're writing programs". Which is a diminishing part of the computer experience. And now we have to append "... unless you're…

Pop culture characters like Lt. Commander Data seem anachronistic now.

On the other hand, computer use in the star trek universe now seems downright prescient.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#316

Post by HeavyStorm »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #37
HeavyStorm wrote: post #13

Nay-sayers need to decide whether they fear AI because AI is dumb and will fuckup or because AI is smart and will take over.

Silly calling Simon a nay-sayer. Are you a fanatic that thinks anyone saying that there are any limitations to current models = nay-sayer? Like if someone says they wouldnt wanna get a heart transplant operation done purely by GPT5, are they a nay-sayer or is that just reflecting reality?

How do you went from what I said to "fanatical"...?

I don't have the slightest idea who "Simon" is and I'm taking the post at face value: it contradicts itself, and that's a bad argument.

Just think about it... In this scenario, management screws up a formula through AI... Which, at least st this point, will surface at some point - not all of us are math ignorant - so what happens is Brenda gets her position back and upper management loses trust in AI. That's the likely outcome; the Brenda's of the world will suffer until upper management realizes their mistake, but end of the day, they have _not_ lost their value, given the post says that AI screws up.

But this is clearly not the conclusion the author ("Simon") intends - they believe AI will erode Brenda value.

That's what I'm saying - AI can't be both incapable and a job menace. For it to threaten jobs like Brenda's, it need to be very capable.

And sorry but "heart transplant" by a transformer model is laughable. Writing formulas, on the other hand, isn't.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#317

Post by HeavyStorm »

9dev wrote: post #19
HeavyStorm wrote: post #13

Nay-sayers need to decide whether they fear AI because AI is dumb and will fuckup or because AI is smart and will take over.

Both are valid concerns, no need to decide. Take the USA: They are currently lead by a patently dumb president who fucks up the global economy, and at the same time they are powerful enough to do so! For a more serious example, consider the Paperclip Problem[0] for a very smart system that destroys the world due to very dumb behaviour. [0]: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/ai-and-paperclip-problem

I get your point and I understand it, but the OP argument is an anecdote, right? It loses force if it incorporates two opposites like this.

Reading it, what I understood was: ah, so Brenda is safe - co-pilot will screw up, she will point it out and management will learn not to trust the bot.

And what I believe OP intended is "Brenda will lose her job!"

What I think I mean is: yes, both are valid, but conflating both in a single anecdote sounds bad.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#318

Post by simonw »

HeavyStorm wrote: post #316
victorbjorklund wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silly calling Simon a nay-sayer. Are you a fanatic that thinks anyone saying that there are any limitations to current models = nay-sayer? Like if someone says they wouldnt wanna get a heart transplant operation done purely by GPT5, are they a nay-sayer or is that just reflecting reality?

How do you went from what I said to "fanatical"...? I don't have the slightest idea who "Simon" is and I'm taking the post at face value: it contradicts itself, and that's a bad argument. Just think about it... In this scenario, management screws up a formula through AI... Which, at least st this point, will surface at some point - not all of us are math ignorant - so what happens is Brenda gets her position back and…

I didn't author this piece. I quoted it from an amusing TikTok, which I linked to at the bottom. Here's that TikTok in full: https://www.tiktok.com/@belligerentbarbies/video/75683800086...

I've been quite entertained at how quoting a (very funny) joke on TikTok has resulted in a 400+ comment thread on Hacker News.

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#319

Post by thewarrior »

latchup wrote: post #259
candiddevmike wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why generative AI gets a pass at constantly being wrong, but an average worker would be fired if they performed the same way. If a manager needed to constantly correct you or double check your work, you'd be out. Why are we lowering the bar for generative AI?

Multiple reasons: * Gen AI never disagrees with or objects to boss's ideas, even if they are bad or harmful to the company or others. In fact, it always praises them no matter what. Brenda, being a well-intentioned human being, might object to bad or immoral ideas to prevent harm. Since boss's ego is too fragile to accept criticism, he prefers gen AI. * Boss is usually not qualified, willing, or free to do Brenda's j…

You’re absolutely right !

Re: I’m worried that they put co-pilot in Excel

#320

Post by bigfishrunning »

latchup wrote: post #259
candiddevmike wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why generative AI gets a pass at constantly being wrong, but an average worker would be fired if they performed the same way. If a manager needed to constantly correct you or double check your work, you'd be out. Why are we lowering the bar for generative AI?

Multiple reasons: * Gen AI never disagrees with or objects to boss's ideas, even if they are bad or harmful to the company or others. In fact, it always praises them no matter what. Brenda, being a well-intentioned human being, might object to bad or immoral ideas to prevent harm. Since boss's ego is too fragile to accept criticism, he prefers gen AI. * Boss is usually not qualified, willing, or free to do Brenda's j…

Your third point is especially poignant. It points out that AI doesn't just take a job here, but it makes everything worse.

I wish I could upvote this comment twice.

Post reply on HN