[nlawalker]

> Meanwhile an agent that you accept to get only 98% of things right is meeting expectations.

Well yeah, because the agent is so much cheaper and faster than a human that you can eat the cost of the mistakes and everything that comes with them and still come out way ahead. No, of course that doesn't work in aircraft manufacturing or medicine or coding or many other scenarios that get tossed around on HN, but it does work in a lot of others.

[closewith]

Definitely would work in coding. Most software companies can only dream of a 2% defect rate. Reality is probably closer to 98%, which is why we have so much organisational overhead around finding and fixing human error in software.

[brulard]

How does a software product with 98% defect rate look like? Even 2% seems like a lot. Like one in 50 interactions fail, or 1 in 50 data writes produce data corruption.