> "any "AI" is better than none no matter how poor it is" You don't have to disagree. The OP said: > "it doesn't really matter all that much how good the AI i

> "any "AI" is better than none no matter how poor it is" You don't have to disagree. The OP said: > "it doesn't really matter all that much how good the AI is" I think you're both correct and you bring up an interesting point. As long as your AI is "good enough" to replace what would've taken more resources to do otherwise, it's a win. I'm not sure if that's "half" as you stated, but I bet it depends on the task. If the task is saving a few seconds to query something, then I'd agree, half of the time wrong isn't a savings. But, if you have less than half a chance at saving thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours if it works correctly, then that may be chalked up as a win.