[Ukv]

> I don't want my pencil to draw 2% away from where my hand goes: I want it to be the exact result of what I do

If you have a pencil that, due to the graphite core being loose, draws 0.5mm from your intended position and you're considering swapping to another pencil, then I'd say the correct line of consideration for the new pencil is whether it's more accurate than the alternatives (and weigh that up against other factors like cost/comfort). If you reject it for not having absolutely zero imprecision, you may just be inadvertently be sticking with an option that has greater imprecision.

Totally fine to decide not to use some tool if it really is less accurate than the alternatives (and you don't consider that inaccuracy to be made up for by other factors) - and I agree plenty of uses-cases would fall into that - just that it should be compared in this way and not against some "it must never make errors" standard. I see the same logic applied to autonomous vehicles ("they should be penalized/not allowed on roads until they cause zero deaths"), computer-vision quality-assurance ("the system is unacceptable if it misses any defects"), or even vaccines ("the manufacturer must be sued into the ground for every side-effect").

> Nobody will consider a "sorry I'm late, my phone AI gave me almost the good address for the appointment" as anything else than a loose excuse.

In 2025 if I give someone an address, I pretty much expect them to use some system with ML-based query-understanding/routing/map-updating/etc. like Google Maps, and would find it more odd if their excuse was that they were having trouble with their paper maps.