What if a flight only cost a nickel, but there was a 40% chance it blew up?
Not all errors are equal.
Sometimes 99% as good isn't even close to good enough.
But, yes, for most things 60% for 1/100th the price, is going to cut it.
Not all errors are equal.
Sometimes 99% as good isn't even close to good enough.
But, yes, for most things 60% for 1/100th the price, is going to cut it.
Kia in the early 2000s offered buy one get one deals on their cars. The joke was always that already you would have one car on the road while the other was in the shop.
They honestly were along the lines of 60% reliable compared to Honda or Toyota in my experience. Enough people bought them though that Kia eventually got it together and a decade later could sell a car every bit as good with a better warranty than the rest.
Cars would literally be disposable. It's cheaper to throw away than fix.
You buy 5 cars and when one breaks you toss it.
This is a great deal
Everything has failure modes though so this isn't nearly as easy of a comparison...
Just as an example on the analogy, there are plenty of cases of pilot suicide bringing down planes too that one would expect would never happen with pure automation... So you can just as easily turn the analogy around and say people are the "cheap but worse" option.
FWIW, we have been able to create processes to manage risks with unpredictable humans, why couldn't we with AI ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
No, because this is a factual question with a factual answer. You need to actually know which is more dangerous.
> FWIW, we have been able to create processes to manage risks with unpredictable humans, why couldn't we with AI ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Because humans and AI are different? We are much better at predicting when humans will be wrong than with AI, for one.