Commenter criticizes acceptance of persistent failure rates
5 Yesterday 1:52 PM · 1d ago · 2 comments · 1 source · development 5 of 7
A voice argues that developers and organizations are increasingly willing to accept and rationalize persistent failure rates (around 10%) rather than addressing root causes, treating AI as an excuse.
“most people are not. For whatever reasons (mgmt pressure, trying to get ahead, skill issues, etc) they half ass it, accept the 10% (silent) fail rate and blame the bad outcomes on the AI as if that absolves them.”
lokarihatethefuture.com author Article authoroli5679 AI systems engineer (ops automation)adamddev1 Commenterbenjaminsky2 Developer with validation experience
The whole story articlespostscomments the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 2 voices · verbatim
-
I don’t think the author (or many people) doubt that one can (and some will) find a way that does not “suck”But it’s pretty clear that most people are not. For whatever reasons (mgmt pressure, trying to get ahead, skill issues, etc) they half ass it, accept the 10% (silent) fail rate and blame the bad outcomes on the AI as if that absolves them…
-
I’ve validated Jev’s confidence score. Accuracy scales linearly with confidence for the 3 use cases I tested. >.9 it matched a human labeler. I immediately discovered a user behavior I didn’t expect for ~$3. I can now mitigate in real-time due to low cost and latency. This may have a major positive financial impact for all our customers.Not sure…
All 7 developments of Article on AI-driven software failures sparks debate over… →
NewswiresHacker NewsMastodonLobsters