The discussion is missing the point of the original snarky comment

So you don't trust the computer vision algorithm...

But you do trust the meatbags?

Reminds me of the whole discussion around self driving cars. About how people wanted perfection, both in executing how cars move and ethics. While they drove around humans every day just fine

▲

bryanrasmussen 4 days ago | parent [-]

>Reminds me of the whole discussion around self driving cars. About how people wanted perfection,

sure, if an expert in self driving cars came in and said self driving cars are untrustworthy.

▲

TrololoTroll 4 days ago | parent [-]

As someone who has dealt with humans all your life, do you think humans are trustworthy?

That's the magic with not setting a mathematically verifiable acceptance criteria. You just fall back to that kind of horrible argument

▲

bryanrasmussen 4 days ago | parent [-]

somehow it seems not as magic as setting the mathematically verifiable acceptance criteria that fails 99% of the time. (percentage chosen to show absurdity of claiming that mathematically verifiable acceptance criteria is inherently superior)

no I don't think humans are trustworthy, I think the procedures discussed are more secure than the alternative on offer which an expert in that technology described as being untrustworthy, implying that it was less trustworthy than the processes it was offered as an alternative to, and then gave technical reasons why which basically boiled down to the reasons why I expected that alternative would be untrustworthy

	▲	3 days ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]