My understanding is that this is normalized to the "best human" for the tasks.
An AI only doing a task correctly 50% of the time may in-fact be better than your N% chance of hiring a highly capable human for that task, and especially for contracting a human to a 1-2 hour task.
But your successful use of AI is still predicated on a human who can judge output and break the work into smaller tasks that fit the skill ceiling of the AI, which is currently no more than tasks that take a skilled human 2 hours.
False. That guy spent 6 months goofing off for something I can have in minutes. Nothing is a 1-2 hour task for a human working outside of a hobby. Procurement will involve half a dozen people at least and hours of meetings and scope development. And what quality assurance is provided in an hour? Your word? And this is better than my own vibes?
I just want to put this plainly. Programmers are often completely delusional about their own productivity and nobody can reliably define work quality in the field. The whole field is a mess, and I’m glad product owners and users are finally being empowered.
An AI only doing a task correctly 50% of the time may in-fact be better than your N% chance of hiring a highly capable human for that task, and especially for contracting a human to a 1-2 hour task.
But your successful use of AI is still predicated on a human who can judge output and break the work into smaller tasks that fit the skill ceiling of the AI, which is currently no more than tasks that take a skilled human 2 hours.