3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoNo, 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 agoConsider 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 agoReplace AI with dart board..