When discussing AI risks like hallucinations, former Chief Justice McCormack argues the proper comparison isn't a perfect system, but the existing human one. Humans get tired, biased, and make mistakes. The question isn't whether AI is flawless, but whether it's an improvement over the error-prone reality.

Instead of waiting for AI models to be perfect, design your application from the start to allow for human correction. This pragmatic approach acknowledges AI's inherent uncertainty and allows you to deliver value sooner by leveraging human oversight to handle edge cases.

Don't wait for AI to be perfect. The correct strategy is to apply current AI models—which are roughly 60-80% accurate—to business processes where that level of performance is sufficient for a human to then review and bring to 100%. Chasing perfection in-house is a waste of resources given the pace of model improvement.

The benchmark for AI performance shouldn't be perfection, but the existing human alternative. In many contexts, like medical reporting or driving, imperfect AI can still be vastly superior to error-prone humans. The choice is often between a flawed AI and an even more flawed human system, or no system at all.

Despite hype in areas like self-driving cars and medical diagnosis, AI has not replaced expert human judgment. Its most successful application is as a powerful assistant that augments human experts, who still make the final, critical decisions. This is a key distinction for scoping AI products.

Don't blindly trust AI. The correct mental model is to view it as a super-smart intern fresh out of school. It has vast knowledge but no real-world experience, so its work requires constant verification, code reviews, and a human-in-the-loop process to catch errors.

OpenAI's Chairman advises against waiting for perfect AI. Instead, companies should treat AI like human staff—fallible but manageable. The key is implementing robust technical and procedural controls to detect and remediate inevitable errors, turning an unsolvable "science problem" into a solvable "engineering problem."

AI21 Labs' CMO Sharon Argov suggests openly discussing AI's potential for mistakes. This shifts the conversation from the technology's flaws to how an organization can manage the 'cost of error,' turning a negative into a strategic discussion about risk management and trustworthiness.

A key argument for getting large companies to trust AI agents with critical tasks is that human-led processes are already error-prone. Bret Taylor argues that AI agents, while not perfect, are often more reliable and consistent than the fallible human operations they replace.