The point I was making is that some tools need to be accurate to be useful (rulers, ATMs, clocks) but not all tools need to be 100% accurate to be useful. A tool that could predict the stock market or winning lottery numbers, or even some aspects of weather, with 85% accuracy would be useful.

AI is not one of those tools. In fact it is the opposite. If it is not accurate, much like a ruler, it is actively harmful.

Once again, that's a people problem. Unrealistic expectation and lack of education.

Everything is a people problem. But the people pushing AI are pushing false narratives about usefulness and accuracy. If I bought a ruler that turned out to only work 75% of the time and when I complained to the manufacturer they said "well, you had false expectations," would that be okay?

(especially when the manufacturer, and every manufacturer, was pushing me to use one of the new rulers arguing it would save me time?)

I haven't been hearing a lot of claims about accuracy. Who is making them? Can you give some examples (credible ones)?

I could ask ChatGPT...

So wait, now you're saying it isn't a problem that AI isn't accurate because no one is CLAIMING AI is accurate?

If you read my post again, you'll see that I was asking a question not making an assertion.

Then have the courage of your convictions and actually say something.

I hope you're joking.

You'll never know.

It is incredibly easy to look up the thing you asked, and you asking a question implying a lack of credible sources reads as disingenuous at best Your lack of information is here is human error. Yours.

I wanted your point of view. I don't know where you are hearing those claims. Of course I can look it up but then I'm talking to a machine instead of getting your personal perspective.

No you wouldn’t be talking to a machine, unless the articles and research you are using were composed by llm. Requesting someone else do work you know you can do is in poor taste.

“AI” cannot and will never be able to do that.