I disagree. Clearly the police felt the AI was "responsible enough" to be the only thing they needed to trust.

The AI made the call and humans licked its butthole

And that is a complete failure of the police and authorities. They made the decision to extradite her with such flimsy evidence.

	▲	conartist6 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it didn't erase accountability, how would it create any value? Many people are treating this as a matter of philosophy, which it isn't. At a primitive, physiological level if you delegate to AI and most of the time you don't get in trouble for it, the resulting relationship you have with the AI could only be called "trust". If you're expected to be 40% more productive at your job, your employer is making it crystal clear that you will trust the AI or you will be fired. Even if nobody ever said it, the sales pitch is that AI does the work and people are mostly there to be their servants whose role is to keep them fed with decisions we want made but don't want to be responsible for making.

dmurray 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if she was guilty, they shouldn't have imprisoned her for 3+ months without interviewing her. The AI didn't tell them to do that.

rpdillon 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And the police were wrong, which is why they're the culpable ones.

throw-the-towel 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think you actually agree with the GP? As I understand them, they're saying that it's not the AI tool that takes the most blame, it's the police.

Chris2048 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even if the id was correct, why would they leave her in jail for 5 months before the first interview and/or court appearance?

PTOB 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No indication that the licking was consentual.

> Clearly the police felt the AI was "responsible enough" to be the only thing they needed to trust.

Yes, that's what the OPs "incompetence and negligence" referred to.