So if an AI fantasized your face into the extrapolated pixels of the evidence for a documented murder case you would be happy with the conviction, because on average it might be somewhat correct?

I don't wanna hurt anybodies feelings by stating that AI isn't a magical wand that makes everything better — but every technology has use cases at which it excels (e.g. pattern recognition) and use cases for which it is fundamentally unsuitable. If you try to screw on a nut using a hammer, that doesn't mean hammers suck, it means the user has a wrong idea what a hammer is capable of.

The point is: Don't be that person if you can avoid it.

There are applications - such as finding out whether you have a tumor or not - when "improving on average while ignoring outliers" is not acceptable.