|
| ▲ | onraglanroad 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's not less accurate. As commented above, the control knew they were being tested against the machine, so made sure to be super careful. In everyday life the human is less careful, and the machine costs 1% of the human. |
|
| ▲ | murderfs 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Presumably your current book keeper is not your slave, and you have to pay them... |
| |
| ▲ | altruios 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | ...again: liability is the key issue. Cost savings a not exactly an isolated issue here. | | |
| ▲ | murderfs 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Then why only have one human bookkeeper? Surely two would be better, since you can compare their results. But then, perhaps you should hire three, so you can figure out which one is right. | | |
| ▲ | altruios 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Regardless of how correct they are, they assume liability: which is a metric that you do not improve with more bookkeepers. | |
| ▲ | deno 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | But what if the third bookkeeper is malicious? You need at least four bookkeepers to achieve byzantine fault tolerance with f=1. | | |
| |
| ▲ | CamperBob2 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Got some bad news for you about that "liability" thing: it's always been on you. Read the fine print on your tax forms sometime. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | wat10000 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because it's way cheaper. Not saying it's a good tradeoff, but that appears to be their pitch. |
