Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not even "fewer mistakes than humans," just make the same mistakes but a lot faster and that's also good enough reason to keep it around (esp when you add parallelization) just from an efficiency/productivity point of view. There may still be other anti AI arguments, ofc.
All that output needs to be checked, thus why making mistakes faster doesn't seem valuable. How do we determine mistakes are made in the first place. Is it determined by people?
Could be. Machines don't need to provide all the functions of human beings to replace many workers. You can concentrate the supervision and direction function in a single person and assign the rest of the grunt job to machines. You still have replaced most of your human workers.