> Whereas, when a machine makes that mistake, somebody fixes the bug and it doesn't happen again.
Well, that is kind of the problem with AI. How do you fix a "bug" (if you can even call it that) in a model you cannot fully understand? Do you re-train it on the catastrophic mistake and somehow give it more weight? How can you be sure that this won't lead to any problems where previously there were none? How do you explain to a customer that your model now doesn't make mistake A anymore, but now mistakes B and C frequently occur? The only safe bet is to write some auxiliary code, which first uses the AI as a black box, and afterwards explicitly checks the result for this particular mistake. If this happens again, and again, and again, you need a human to maintain and extend this auxiliary code and also adjust it to changes in the underlying model, at which point I am quite certain just using a person of average intelligence instead of AI will be cheaper, more reliable and more flexible.
Well, that is kind of the problem with AI. How do you fix a "bug" (if you can even call it that) in a model you cannot fully understand? Do you re-train it on the catastrophic mistake and somehow give it more weight? How can you be sure that this won't lead to any problems where previously there were none? How do you explain to a customer that your model now doesn't make mistake A anymore, but now mistakes B and C frequently occur? The only safe bet is to write some auxiliary code, which first uses the AI as a black box, and afterwards explicitly checks the result for this particular mistake. If this happens again, and again, and again, you need a human to maintain and extend this auxiliary code and also adjust it to changes in the underlying model, at which point I am quite certain just using a person of average intelligence instead of AI will be cheaper, more reliable and more flexible.