As someone pointed out, perhaps the example wasn't thought out well enough. So why go into the details of that, and skip the underlying point? That maybe the sy

As someone pointed out, perhaps the example wasn't thought out well enough. So why go into the details of that, and skip the underlying point? That maybe the system WILL come up with a bad plan and execute it? Or are you saying: "if the system is smart enough to plan murder, he is also smart enough to know murder is bad" ?? Doesn't that depend on what data the system has seen? Perhaps he doesn't he doesn't have cases in its knowledge base that demonstrate eh side effects of murdering business heads. Perhaps he can only see what happens when they normally die? What if it simply correlates the wrong variables (and forgets correlation isn't causation") ?? I apologize for coming back to the same example again. but it would be really nice if you overlook the flaws of the example and discuss the underlying point