Re:I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam Website with Claude
by a4isms on Sunday December 07, 2025 @02:42PM
(#46184452)
If you show me a tool that does a thing perfectly 99% of the time, I will stop checking it eventually. Now let me ask you: How do you feel about the people who manage the security for your bank using that tool? And eventually overlooking a security exploit?
I agree that there are domains for which 90% good is very, very useful. But 99% isn't always better. In some limited domains, it's actually worse.
Re:I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam Website with Claude
by 999900000999 on Sunday December 07, 2025 @04:31PM
(#46185356)
Counterpoint.
Humans don't get it right 100% or the time.
Re:I failed to recreate the 1996 Space Jam Website with Claude
by a4isms on Tuesday December 09, 2025 @11:27AM
(#46206869)
That is a true and useful component of analyzing risk, but the point is that human behaviour isn't a simple risk calculation. We tend to over-guard against things that subjectively seem dangerous, and under-guard against things that subjectively feel safe.
This isn't about whether AI is statistically safer, it's actually about the user experience of AI: If we can provide the same guidance without lulling a human backup into complacency, we will have an excellent augmented capability.
It’s not that binary imo. It can still be extremely useful and save a ton of time if it does 90% of the work and you fix the last 10%. Hardly a bad tool.
It’s only a bad tool if you spent more time fixing the results than building it yourself, which sometimes used to be the case for LLMs but is happening less and less as they get more capable.