60-80% accurate means 20-40% inaccurate, which is significant. I didn’t say “most.” But for the taxa I’m involved with, cicadas and crayfish, it’s much worse. For crayfish, there are about 400 species in North America, a large percentage of which are observed on inaturalist, but only about 10 or 25 (depending on new or old criteria for CV training) have enough research-grade observations to be included in the CV, which means CV is going to be wrong for 97 or 93% of crayfish species. And often people seem to disagree with the top CV suggestions and pick one that they think looks more like their specimen, usually making the guess even less accurate. For cicadas, there isn’t the diversity seen in crayfish, but many specimens are difficult or impossible to identify even by an expert, especially for tenerals and nymphs. The large amount of guessing of these IDs just places more burden on the identifier to clean them up.