Hacker News Reader

I disagree with this sentiment that any "AI" is better than none no matter how poor it is. If I'm a customer and you try to extract text from an image for me, but it's wrong over half the time, then it looks really bad. An incorrect extraction is a bug. You're basically just adding bugs to your product. Better a good product with less features than a bug ridden product with lots of features.

View on HN

> "any "AI" is better than none no matter how poor it is"

You don't have to disagree. The OP said:

> "it doesn't really matter all that much how good the AI is"

I think you're both correct and you bring up an interesting point. As long as your AI is "good enough" to replace what would've taken more resources to do otherwise, it's a win. I'm not sure if that's "half" as you stated, but I bet it depends on the task. If the task is saving a few seconds to query something, then I'd agree, half of the time wrong isn't a savings. But, if you have less than half a chance at saving thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours if it works correctly, then that may be chalked up as a win.

It's appropriate in search, if you use the data as features to improve recall

Reply on news.ycombinator.com