Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There are in fact lots of tasks people complete immediately at 99.99% success rate at first iteration or 99.999% after self and peer checking work

Perhaps importantly checking is a continual process and errors are identified as they are made and corrected whilst in context instead of being identified later by someone completely devoid of any context a task humans are notably bad at.

Lastly it's important to note the difference between a overarching task containing many sub tasks and the sub tasks.

Something which fails at a sub task comprising 10 sub tasks 2% of the time per task has a miserable 18% failure rate at the overarching task. By 20 it's failed at 1 in 3 attempts worse a failing human knows they don't know the answer the failing AI produces not only wrong answers but convincing lies

Failure to distinguish between human failure and AI failure in nature or degree of errors is a failure of analysis.



> There are in fact lots of tasks people complete immediately at 99.99% success rate at first iteration or 99.999% after self and peer checking work

This is so absurd that I wonder if you're telling? Humans don't even have a 99.99% success rate in breathing, let alone any cognitive tasks.


> Humans don't even have a 99.99% success rate in breathing

Will you please elaborate a little on this?


Humans cough or otherwise have to clear their airways about 1 in every 1,000 breaths, which is a 99.9% success rate.


Thank you for following up


That’s quite good given the complexity and fragility of the system and the chaotic nature of the environment.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: