> Across many applications areas, we’ll be left with a choice of using a 90% accurate model we understand, or 99% accurate model we don’t. I remember a doctor

> Across many applications areas, we’ll be left with a choice of using a 90% accurate model we understand, or 99% accurate model we don’t. I remember a doctor telling me that about a condition my child had. He said that "generally" it wasn't dangerous. It was interesting because to him what was important - naturally - was to work with the numbers and get the best overall results - without knowing or understanding exactly why. It was better for him and his time use to just know that it was "generally" OK. From my point of view I wasn't interested in "generally" but only specifically whether it was going to be dangerous in this case. I think when the shit hits the fan for one personally then 90% you understand is going to be vastly better than 99% you don't. In a world where everything runs on the 99% model I imagine most people will have it good, but sometimes insanely terrible things will happen. Maybe that's ok. As someone (I forget) pointed out we already have a form of opaque AI in the form of huge human bureaucracies that produce outcomes without anyone understanding all the steps that produce them. So maybe we already partly live in that world.