No. Youre missing the UX forest for the pedantry trees here. Ive worked on a team that did similar change detection with little to no ML magic. It matters how its presented as a hint (“top five suggested”) and not THE ANSWER. In addition its VERY common to do things like present confidence or weight to the user. And why theres a huge need for explainability.
And this is just part of the diagnosis process. The system should still be providing breadcrumbs or short cuts for the user to test the suggested hypothesis.
Which is why any responsible system like this will include feedback loops and evaluation of false positive/negative outcomes and tune for sensitivity & specificity over time.
I have about 30 years experience both on hard engineering (electronics) and software engineering particularly on failure analysis and reliability engineering. Most people are lazy and get led astray with false information. This is a very dangerous thing. You need a proper conceptualisation framework like a KT problem analysis to eliminate incorrect causes and keep people thinking rationally and get your MTTR down to something reasonable.
Sounds like you're projecting your own laziness and shortcomings on others. This is a tool that seems really helpful considering the alternative is 0%.
Calling things 'shit' and 'crap,' and then claiming that the authors actually feel the same but can't say it, is ridiculous and undermines any authority you think you have.
And this is just part of the diagnosis process. The system should still be providing breadcrumbs or short cuts for the user to test the suggested hypothesis.
Which is why any responsible system like this will include feedback loops and evaluation of false positive/negative outcomes and tune for sensitivity & specificity over time.