People absolutely would feel the difference if AI models started making 90% of the decisions.

You were just denied an application because some LLM decided you fit a certain statistical pattern. Where did the LLM go wrong? What were the steps taken to make that decision? Who can you appeal to? Nobody. AI bureaucracy would just keep chugging along, making decisions based on prejudices and patterns it finds but doesn't feel.

Rainer Mühlhoff makes some compelling arguments in trying to warn people of the dangers of an AI bureaucracy/state.

▲

treis 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What do you think the government is like today? At least with LLMs you'd get your incorrect answer quickly and cheaply.

▲

adamddev1 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Human incompetence, or human-written algorithmic incompetence in code can still be identified, appealed to, and dealt with.

With LLMs you get incompetence cut off from human embodiment and any chance of empathy, baked into opaque black-boxes, and automated and scaled.

We should be arriving to build things that are correct, not saying "stuff sucks already, let's make more stuff that sucks."

	▲	treis 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There are theoretically appeals but for the most part they're illusionary. The original decision is given a lot of deference and the appeal is almost always denied. Plus it's gated beyond a lot of time and money. In adversarial proceedings that's a weapon for one side or the other.