Why a 3% accuracy edge could be worth billions: 94%→97% halves failures
sylsau · reddit · 2026-09-07
Arguing against "why pay billions for an AI that's only 3% better?": going from 94% to 97% accuracy cuts failures in half, meaning fewer corrections and less supervision — the point where work becomes worth automating. The author contends open models remain the smart pick for everyday tasks, but the remaining gap may hold the biggest money, and asks whether users would pay a premium for fewer mistakes or check a cheaper model's work.
More from AGI Musings
- Reddit debate: should expert corrections to AI outputs count as paid work? — gareth789 · 2026-09-07
- LLMs aren't creating a new intellectual program — they're reviving symbolic AI's old questions — Amichayg · 2026-09-07
- MIT's 13-lecture Society of Mind course by Marvin Minsky is free online — TheMoonMidas · 2026-09-07
- Delip Rao: scaling was necessary but not sufficient, OpenAI got lucky — deliprao · 2026-09-07
- Analyst speculates OpenAI's Astra is a World Model 3.0 after abandoning Sora — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-07
- Journal argues academia structurally selects against creativity — a decades-old consensus — davidmanheim · 2026-09-07