4 ms·
>An automated process only has to be wrong once to compel human operators to double or triple check every other result it gives. This immediately destroys the u
by SkyBelow 6y ago
>An automated process only has to be wrong once to compel human operators to double or triple check every other result it gives. This immediately destroys the upside as now you’re 1) doing the process manually anyway and 2) fighting the automated system in order to do so.
I think this is the core of the problem. 99% isn't good enough. Even 99.9% isn't good enough when we are talking acceptable accepted error margins. Even if humans make more mistakes than the AI, telling our customer it was a human error is much easier for our customers to accept than telling them it was a program error without our threshold tolerance.
We see this with self driving cars. People's reactions to the machines is that the machines have to be far better than humans before humans will be okay with the risks involved. This also holds for financial aspects. Imagine your grocery store telling you that there is a X% chance of being double charged for an item and that is within acceptable error tolerance. Even if X is lower than the rate that human grocers accidentally double charge will people be okay with that as the planned error rate or will they demand perfection?
- vsareto 6y agoEven if you balance the double charging with a chance to get an item for free (or negative price, acting as a credit), humans will still complain when they get double charged and stay silent when they get the bonus. But of course there's rich people who don't even care they were double charged for something like groceries. Most of these issues aren't about how many 9's of reliability there are, but whether or not some person is accountable. AI is not itself accountable, only the person in charge of it. Many companies already give gift cards or whatever when a human mistake happens as a form of customer service, and there's not enough compensation around AI error rates to make them palatable.
- afeller08 6y ago>Even if humans make more mistakes than the AI, telling our customer it was a human error is much easier for our customers to accept than telling them it was a program error without our threshold tolerance. The veracity of this statement greatly depends on whose mistake you are saying it was. List of things by how hard they are to say (easiest to hardest): 1) Someone else messed up. We'll deal with him. 2) Our code is bad. We'll fix it. 3) I messed up. I'm sorry.
- SkyBelow 6y agoApologies, I didn't communicate what I meant clearly. I meant that our customers would accept us blaming human error easier than they would accept us saying it is by design.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]