zlacker

>>mfbx9d+(OP)
I'm going to say an unpopular opinion here: I think agents are going to turn out mostly useless, even if they worked almost perfectly.

How many jobs involve purely clicking things on a computer without human authorities, rules, regulations, permits, spending agreements, privacy laws, security requirements, insurance requirements, or licensing gates?

I wager, almost none. The bottleneck in most work isn't "clicking things on a computer." It's human judgment, authorization chains, regulatory gates, accountability requirements, and spending approvals. Agents automate the easy part and leave the hard part untouched. Meanwhile, if the agents also get it wrong, even 1% of the time, that's going to add up like compound interest in wasted time. Anything that could actually be outsourced to an agent, would have already been outsourced to Kenya.

>>gjsman+Ntg
I worked in the fraud department for for a big bank (handling questionable transactions). I can say with 100% certainty an agent could do the job better than 80% of the people I worked with and cheaper than the other 20%.

>>mritch+Qug
That's great; until someone gets sued. Who do you think the bank wants to put on the stand? A fallible human who can be blamed as an individual, or "sorry, the robot we use for everybody, possibly, though we can't prove one way or another, racially profiled you? I suppose you can ask it for comment?"

>>gjsman+DYh
sued for what?

if the bank makes mistakes in fraud, they just eat the cost.