Why does it need things that are absent in humans?
Sure, those things could make some things easier, but why are those things that humans don't have suddenly "non negotiable" when a machine also can't do them?
Those things aren't absent in humans. We spend trillions of dollars to make sure humans are qualified and aren't just bullshitting plausible-sounding words. (In fact, that's really the whole point of "education", which some people spend 20 years being subjected to.)
> confidence interval and has weights to manipulate precision and recall
Neither of which are supplied by education, and I am unaware of any humans basing able to deliberately (let alone precisely) alter their own perception on the scale between precision and recall — look at something, it's "obviously" X or not X almost immediately after you know what the category X is, even when you're wrong. Apart from the very first few encounters it doesn't even matter how much of a noob or expert you are in the field of X-recognition, your confidence is the same.
Worse:
> qualified
Given how well ChatGPT does on standardised tests, doing better than many actual humans even despite its many flaws and limitations, it should be clear that the qualifications are not good enough to do what you're expecting them to do.
> and aren't just bullshitting plausible-sounding words.
That's demonstrably how humans work (at least when it can be tested, perhaps people who need split brains are weird): all the indications are we do a thing first and then come up with a justification after.
(And then we have people like Boris Johnson, 2:1 BA from Oxford, with a disconnect between reality and the words leaving his mouth that would be comical except he actually became Prime Minister in real life and not just a TV comedy blending 'Allo 'Allo with The Thick of It).
Sure, those things could make some things easier, but why are those things that humans don't have suddenly "non negotiable" when a machine also can't do them?
Legal issues?