[uh_uh]

Humans are also less than perfect systems. Especially if they have to deal with monotonous tasks. A human might perform better on a 100 entries than an AI, but on 10 thousand? Of course you can distribute the workload, but you will balloon the costs (I'm talking about a future where GPT3 costs come down).

There must be a set of projects which are cost prohibited now due to having to pay humans but will become feasible exactly because of this tech. For a good portion of these, higher-than-human error rate will also be tolerable or at least correctable via a small degree of human intervention.

[visarga]

> A human might perform better on a 100 entries than an AI, but on 10 thousand?

There's also increased variance in human accuracy. You might train 100 but 10k people? A model is consistent all the way.

[gbro3n]

This is a good point. There is some work that just wont be done unless it can be automated, and in that case work with a higher rate of error is preferable to no work at all.