3 ms·
But the parent's point is that "the model and the human probably make different errors". That is frequently true. Take the job of a lifeguard for instance. A s
by fauigerzigerk 6y ago
But the parent's point is that "the model and the human probably make different errors".
That is frequently true. Take the job of a lifeguard for instance. A single mistake can be catastrophic, and yet we know that people have trouble staying completely focused for hours on end.
AIs have no trouble staying focused and they can be trained to spot drowing swimmers pretty well even on a crowded beach.
Having a human lifeguard plus an AI that alerts the lifeguard when it spots something suspicious could lead to better outcomes than employing two lifeguards.
- kingkawn 6y agoThis is very dependent on the false positive rate. Similar to the examples above about false negatives, if the AI gives false positives the lifeguards will stop paying attention to its feedback.
- AlexandrB 6y ago> Having a human lifeguard plus an AI that alerts the lifeguard when it spots something suspicious could lead to better outcomes than employing two lifeguards. I disagree. I think you'll see the same thing as with drivers falling asleep while Tesla autopilot is running. The lifeguard will let the computer do all the monitoring since a low false negative rate combined with a low incidence rate means that most bodyguards will experience the computer being 100% reliable for weeks or months at a time. In fact it's not unreasonable that if the lifeguard sees someone drowning but the computer doesn't register it as such the lifeguard may question their own judgement based on experience.