> But the argument still applies then [...] a human will be installed as a failsafe for the failsafe.
Surely this will depend on the cost of failure, and the cost of the human failsafe.
Spellcheck in an email client helps prevent the minor embarrassment of typos and spelling errors in emails, and few emails are so consequential that it's worth having them carefully manually vetted.
Of course, this is why I wrote "catastrophic" above. I also would not call an email spellchecker a business use case. Regarding spellcheckers per se: I have worked with book publishing companies in the last few years, and I can assure you all major book publishers employ real humans for the final spellchecking before a book goes into print.
Surely this will depend on the cost of failure, and the cost of the human failsafe.
Spellcheck in an email client helps prevent the minor embarrassment of typos and spelling errors in emails, and few emails are so consequential that it's worth having them carefully manually vetted.