That is the luxury of theory.

Yes, most situations are terrible compared to what would be if an expert was present to perfect it.

Except if there isn’t an expert, and there’s a normal person, how do they know the output is right ?

not sure I get your point?

	▲	timeinput 16 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think the parent is saying what if the AI made such a terrible mess that the team of imperfect people thought it was fine, but it was just as bad as the terrible mess the team would have created because the team is not capable of evaluating whether it's a good idea or not. (possible follow on consequences -- no one can debug it or figure out if it's a good idea either)
	▲	recursive 16 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The point is that in real companies the bad mess already exists. So it is a good argument. Or at least a practical one.
	▲	intended 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		As the two other commenters pointed out The mess already existed for a reason. There’s a certain amount of expertise in the average firm. If they could afford an expert, they wouldn’t be the same firm. If they do get an AI expert - how do they check the output given the level of ability they have?