AI looks to be great for ideation and development. But it's not there if you value a high quality output.
Agreed. I don't see this current version of AI as a calculator, but as an adaptable companion to work ideas with. The calculator side will continue to get better, but there's already so much value in the ideation side. Obvious is augmenting writing. The other I have found is in planning. If we expand to images, there's things like Firefly.
Getting an email just right is so much easier/faster now. It's increased my productivity from that one thing alone. Coding is also very helpful, and while not always 100%, it presents ideas which then I can use to get to the solution.
This is the first time I've seen a fairly straight line to a Star Trek like computer assistant at some point in the future.
It will improve the answer.
Iterating this you can get way beyond the quality of the first answer. You have full control over the quality but you have to bring something to the collaboration.
Quality is a complex thing that requires design, safeguards, process, as well as iteration. You can't design test suites or checklists with just AI, because you don't know if the AI will decide to override them because of some other instruction or signal. And how do you determine the quality of the signal anyway? The quality of input of each human varies.
It's "too adaptive" for QA. You would need a QA for the QA.
I definitely don't treat its output with full trust, but I've been pleasantly surprised that even when I give it bad or incorrect guidance (unintentionally) it has caught my mistake, corrected me, and I've learned things.
For the QA case, I suppose what you're getting at is that if it can't be fully trusted, you might get incorrect QA results -- false negatives, false positives -- I'd agree but I think you just have to find an effective way to use the tool. Perhaps the obvious way most people would want to use the tool, is not in fact the best way to use the tool.
But just because the tool isn't delivering the perfection people hope for, doesn't mean there isn't some other way to use it that still catches (some) mistakes and adds value.
