[blahgeek]

If human is at, say, 80%, it’s still a win to use AI agents to replace human workers, right? Similar to how we agree to use self driving cars as long as it has less incidents rate, instead of absolute safety

[harry8]

> we agree to use self driving cars ...

Not everyone agrees.

[Terr_]

I like to point out that the error-rate is not the error-shape. There are many times we can/should prefer a higher error rate with errors we can anticipate, detect, and fix, as opposed to a lower rate with errors that are unpredictable and sneaky and unfixable.

[a3w]

Yes, let's not have cars. Self-driving ones will just increase availability and might even increase instead of reduce resource expenditure, except for the metric of parking lots needed.

[wellf]

Hmmm. Depends. Not all unethicals are equal. Automated unethicalness could be a lot more disruptive.

[jstummbillig]

A large enough cooperation or institution is essentially automated. Its behavior is what the median employer will do. If you have a system to stop bad behavior, then that's automated and will also safeguard against bad AI behavior (which seems to work in this example too)

[FatherOfCurses]

Oh yeah it's a blast for the human workers getting replaced.

It's also amazing for an economy predicated on consumer spending when no one has disposable income anymore.

[rzmmm]

The bar is higher for AI in most cases.