[015a]

"Making fewer mistakes" implies that there's a framework within which the agent operates where its performance can be quickly judged as correct or incorrect. But, computers have already automated many tasks and roles in companies where this description applies; and competitive companies now remain capitalistically competitive not because they have stronger automation of boolean jobs, but because they're better configured to leverage human creativity in tasks and roles performance in which cannot be quickly judged as correct or incorrect.

Apple is the world's most valuable company, and many would attribute a strong part of their success to Jobs' legacy of high-quality decision-making. But anyone who has worked in a large company understands that there's no way Apple can so consistently produce their wide range of highly integrated, high quality products with only a top-down mandate from one person; especially a dead one. It takes thousands of people, the right people, given the right level of authority, making high-quality high-creativity decisions. It also, obviously, takes the daily process, an awe-inspiring global supply chain, automation systems, and these are areas that computers, and now AI, can have a high impact in. But that automation is a commodity now. Samsung has access to that same automation, and they make fridges and TVs; so why aren't they worth almost four trillion dollars?

AI doesn't replace humans; it, like computers more generally before it, brings the process cost of the inhuman things it can automate to zero. When that cost is zero, AI cannot be a differentiating factor between two businesses. The differentiating factors, instead, become the capital the businesses already have to deploy (favoring of established players), and the humans who interact with the AI, interpreting and when necessary executing on its decisions.