3 ms·

> because they are a good scape goat and not because they save money. Exactly the point - there are humans in control who filter the AI outputs before they are

> because they are a good scape goat and not because they save money. Exactly the point - there are humans in control who filter the AI outputs before they are applied to the real world. We don't give them direct access to the HR platform or the targeting computer, there is always a human in the loop. If the AI's output is to fire the CEO or bomb an allied air base, you ignore what it says. And if it keeps making too many such mistakes, you simply decommission it.

dartos 2y ago
I think you’re missing OC’s point. There’s always a human in the loop, but instead of stopping an immoral decision, they’ll just keep that decision and blame the AI if there’s any pushback. It’s what United Healthcare was doing.
- semi-extrinsic 2y ago
  No, this part I agree 100% with. But in this scenario there is no grandiose danger due to lack of "alignment". Either the AI says what the MBA wants it to say, or it gets asked again with a modified prompt. You can replace "AI" with "McKinsey consultant" and everything in the whole scenario is exactly the same.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Consider the case of AI designating targets for Israeli strikes in Gaza [1] which get only a cursory review by humans. One could argue that it's still the case of AI saying what humans want it to say ("give us something to bomb"), but the specific target that it picks still matters a great deal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
    - HappMacDonald 2y ago
      Replace AI with dart board..
kaibee 2y ago
> We don't give them direct access to the HR platform We already algorithmically filter resumes, using far dumber 'AI'. Now sure, that's not firing the CEO level... but trying to fire the CEO when you're an AI is a stupid strategy to begin with. But consider a misaligned AI used for screening candidate resumes, with some detailed prompt aligning it to business objectives. If it's prior is that AI is good for companies/business, do you think that it might sometimes filter out candidates it predicts will increase supervision over it/other AI's in the company? If the person being screened has a googleable presence, where even if the resume doesn't contain the AI security stuff, but maybe just author/contributor credits on some paper? Or if its explicitly in the person's resume... Also every time I read any of these blog-posts, or papers about this, I'm kinda laughing, because these are all going to be in the training data going forward.

dartos 2y ago

I think you’re missing OC’s point. There’s always a human in the loop, but instead of stopping an immoral decision, they’ll just keep that decision and blame the AI if there’s any pushback. It’s what United Healthcare was doing.

semi-extrinsic 2y ago
No, this part I agree 100% with. But in this scenario there is no grandiose danger due to lack of "alignment". Either the AI says what the MBA wants it to say, or it gets asked again with a modified prompt. You can replace "AI" with "McKinsey consultant" and everything in the whole scenario is exactly the same.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Consider the case of AI designating targets for Israeli strikes in Gaza [1] which get only a cursory review by humans. One could argue that it's still the case of AI saying what humans want it to say ("give us something to bomb"), but the specific target that it picks still matters a great deal. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
  - HappMacDonald 2y ago
    Replace AI with dart board..

kaibee 2y ago

> We don't give them direct access to the HR platform We already algorithmically filter resumes, using far dumber 'AI'. Now sure, that's not firing the CEO level... but trying to fire the CEO when you're an AI is a stupid strategy to begin with. But consider a misaligned AI used for screening candidate resumes, with some detailed prompt aligning it to business objectives. If it's prior is that AI is good for companies/business, do you think that it might sometimes filter out candidates it predicts will increase supervision over it/other AI's in the company? If the person being screened has a googleable presence, where even if the resume doesn't contain the AI security stuff, but maybe just author/contributor credits on some paper? Or if its explicitly in the person's resume... Also every time I read any of these blog-posts, or papers about this, I'm kinda laughing, because these are all going to be in the training data going forward.