> A second opinion on the validity of the targets was given by AI. Unbeknownst to the humans, the AI advice was completely random. > Despite being informed of

> A second opinion on the validity of the targets was given by AI. Unbeknownst to the humans, the AI advice was completely random. > Despite being informed of the fallibility of the AI systems in the study, two-thirds of subjects allowed their decisions to be influenced by the AI. I mean, if you don't know the advice is random and you think it's an AI that is actually evaluating factors you might not be aware of, why wouldn't you allow it to influence the decision? It would be have to be something you take into account. What would be the point of an AI system that you just completely disregard? Why even have it then? This study is like "We told people this was a tool that would give them useful information, and then they considered that information, oh no!"