4 ms·
Human error rates are also not a constant. If you're about to publish a career-ending allegation, you're going to spend some extra time fact-checking it.
by Retr0id 2y ago
Human error rates are also not a constant.
If you're about to publish a career-ending allegation, you're going to spend some extra time fact-checking it.
- atoav 2y agoCan you point to where that claim was made? I can't find it. The parent post assumes 1% for the sake of argument to underline that the impact of the 1% error depends on the number to which the 1% are applied — automation reduces the effort and increases the number. Hypothetical example: Cops shoot the wrong person in x% of cases. If we equipped all surveillance cameras with guns that also shoot the wrong person in x% of cases the world would be a nightmare pandemonium, simply because there is more cameras and they are running 24/7. Mind that the precise value of x and whether is constant or not does not impact the argument at all.
- Retr0id 2y agoI'm the one making the claim, and it does not attempt to refute the parent post, it agrees with/reinforces it. I'm also making the point that a human with an error rate of x% is not directly comparable to a machine with x% error rate, just via a different line of reasoning.