[chrisseaton]

> even though it's a 10x improvement over a human operator it still wouldn't be allowed on the market

Hmm I don't agree I think people would go for that.

[gambiting]

Then look up Therac-25, because that's roughly what happened

[chrisseaton]

> Therac-25

That wasn't AI - it was a concurrency error, wasn't it?

You shouldn't discard technology because sometimes it's wrong. It can be better overall.

[gambiting]

Why would it matter if it was AI or not? 99.9% of the public won't care if an "AI" killed their mum in a car accident or if it was a badly written for loop somewhere. Literally irrelevant. If a computer makes an error people will want blood(as in - they will sue the company to absolute death, just because a human would make the same mistake or worse is irrelevant).

[chrisseaton]

> Why would it matter if it was AI or not?

I think people's idea of what a computer should be doing has changed a lot since then, due to the common knowledge of AI applications.

Perhaps we're close to the situation where when a person makes a mistake they're asked 'why weren't you using the computer?' I've seen this happen myself.