|
|
|
|
|
by geokon
201 days ago
|
|
The problem is that the original statement is too black and white. We make tradeoffs based on costs and feasibility "if the program underperforms compared to humans and starts making a large amount of errors, the human who set up the pipeline will be held accountable" Like.. compared to one human? Or an army of a thousand humans tracking animals? There is no nuance at all. It's just unreasonable to make a blanket statement that humans always have to be accountable. "If the program is responsible for a critical task .." See how your statement has some nuance? and recognizes that some situations require more accountability and validation that others? |
|