I suppose it depends on the magnitude of the failure.
I suppose it depends on the magnitude of the failure.
Another case where 1% failure would be acceptable is weeding. Suppose you have a bunch of robots removing invasive English ivy from a forest. Maybe once in a while they'll pull up salal or a fern or something by mistake, but that's fine because those aren't endangered species and in the absence of ivy the ecosystem will quickly recover.
Upstairs people were manually putting those boxes on the belts. It destroyed people's bodies, I'm happy I only worked there for a few months each year to put myself through University.
The factory was very high tech and cutting edge, though the humans at each end of the conveyor belts were unavoidable.
We messed up all the time - dropped boxes, did bad stacking and made pallets fall over, crashed pallet jacks and knocked over pallets etc. The failure rate was probably around 5%, I'd guess.
Starting pay was around $30/hr, double that on Sundays, and 2.5 on Public Holidays
A humanoid robot that actually works most of the time will change the world.
Cleaning up trash in a parkland.
Folding clothes.
Searching a forest for survivors.
Unclogging a sewerage pipe.
For many menial tasks, a 1% failure rate (or indeed any failure rate higher than a human) is generally not a problem so long as the economics stack up and safety isn't a concern.