It's one thing if you're up against the staunch reliability of traditional algorithmic systems but if you're not then it's just silly to hang on it.
You are not getting 100% on email handling whatever method you wish to use. You compare LLMs or probabilistic systems to the best of your alternatives.
There are niches where the lack of complete reliability would be a deal breaker. This isn't one of them and it would be weird to act like it were. People aren't sweeping anything under the rug. It simply just isn't a showstopper.
I don't think people are aware of the line at all. You ask five different people which things are reliable in any of these systems and you'll get five different guesses. C'mon here.
That's not what i'm talking about though. The point is that for spam detection, LLMs are up against other probabilistic measures. No-one sane is detecting spam with if-then's. You simply do not have the luxury of rigid reliability.
You are not getting 100% on email handling whatever method you wish to use. You compare LLMs or probabilistic systems to the best of your alternatives.
There are niches where the lack of complete reliability would be a deal breaker. This isn't one of them and it would be weird to act like it were. People aren't sweeping anything under the rug. It simply just isn't a showstopper.