4 ms·
"It feels like either finding that 2% that's off (or dealing with 2% error) will be the time consuming part in a lot of cases." This is the part you have wrong
by j_timberlake 1y ago
"It feels like either finding that 2% that's off (or dealing with 2% error) will be the time consuming part in a lot of cases."
This is the part you have wrong. People just won't do that. They'll save the 8 hours and just deal with 2% error in their work (which reduces as AI models get better). This doesn't work with something with a low error tolerance, but most people aren't building the next Golden Gate Bridge. They'll just fix any problems as they crop up.
Some of you will be screaming right now "THAT'S NOT WORTH IT", as if companies don't already do this to consumers constantly, like losing your luggage at the airport or getting your order wrong. Or just selling you something defective, all of that happens >2% of the time, because companies know customers will just deal-with-it.
- camdenreslink 1y agoIt’s not worth it because of the compounding effect when it is a repeated process. 98% accuracy might be fine for a single iteration, but if you run your process 365 times (maybe once a day for a year) whatever your output is will be so wrong that it is unusable.
- j_timberlake 1y agoCan you name a single job like this? It's much easier to name jobs where the accuracy doesn't compound, like daily customer service chatbots, or personal-tutor bots, or news-aggregator bots, or the inevitable (and somewhat dubious) do-my-tax-returns bot. All I can think of is vibe-coding, and vibe-coding jobs aren't a thing.
- econ 1y agoDoctors get the diagnosis wrong 10-23% of the time (depending on who you ask)