| ▲ | xlayn a day ago |
| Now, ask yourself if you want AI taking decisions around your life... it will pull numbers... someone will have a "goal" of 1000 "hits" and there you go, 2-3 months in jail working to check what went wrong... But don't worry, the other P AI system will ensure that the first one doesn't do mistakes... |
|
| ▲ | TheOtherHobbes a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| You seem to have missed the point, which is that the decision to murder a large number of innocent people was made by humans at the top of the chain of command, and 'AI' is being used as a thin pretext for that. The pattern matches various other acts of senseless violence against innocents in South America. The message isn't "We did this accidentally. We should understand how it happened, so we can make sure it doesn't happen again.". It's "We do this to make the point that we can, no one can stop us, and if we're challenged we're going to lie about it." |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's "We do this to make the point that we can, no one can stop us, and if we're challenged we're going to lie about it." FWIW, forcing people to go along with transparent lies is a popular social manoeuvre. It signals both the power of a group and the power of the person leading the lie. Although it is a very frustrating tendency, because honesty and realism tends to be better for the people who have the numbers. It is hard to organise real efforts around lies. | |
| ▲ | geraneum 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The decision was indeed made by AI and humans failed in their duty to fucking verify it. They green lit and now we have school children dead. No single component of this whole chain is defensible. | | |
| ▲ | lifeformed 18 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Depends on what "decision" means. If I say, "Claude, compile a list of 1000 buildings to blow up," and then skim the output briefly and then press the red button, I wouldn't say Claude "decided" anything. | | |
| ▲ | geraneum 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Of course it did! Among hundreds of thousands it decided those 1000 are the ones to blow up! No matter how we twist the meaning of “decision”. | | |
| ▲ | archonis 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If someone made a table of one hundred potential targets and rolled ten ten sided dice to pick a row to target, do we blame the decision on the dice, the table, Wizards of the Coast, or the person who decided this was a good way to choose targets? | | |
| ▲ | geraneum 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | You’re conflating who chooses the decision maker with the decision making device. So AI’s output is not so different than a roll of dice? Definitely the people who decided to put in such an incapable and unreliable tool should be held accountable. No dispute in that. |
| |
| ▲ | edoceo 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Who decided to bomb places? AI? Who decided to pick a fight? AI? | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | We had a public tender for some 3d model of a railroad project a few years ago, three companies applied and for some reason (corruption) the most expensive one was selected to make the model. They blamed excel for the bad choice. Excel. I mean sure, you can always blame the tool, i can blame my cars rear parking sensors when i hit someone when backing up during parking, but come on... at some point, a human is responsible. Someone, some person, decided and greenlit the decision to bomb those places and should now be in jail for that. I mean, what's next? A building collapses, because the load bearing sections are too weak... do we blame CAD tools now? | | |
| ▲ | geraneum 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Non of the example you’ve falsely equivocated have the word “intelligent“ in them though, do they? | | |
| ▲ | joquarky 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just keep moving those goalposts while ignoring your cognitive dissonance that seems to reject the fact that humans are ultimately responsible. | | |
| ▲ | geraneum 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah you must be one of those "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". | | |
| ▲ | ajsnigrutin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Great example, if someone is killed by gunfire, does the gun go to jail or does the shooter (a person) take responsibility? |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | GoblinSlayer 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then you suddenly realize you outsourced your thinking to Claude, because it's tiresome to think by yourself. | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | The decision to blow up 1000 buildings, without any background check wasn't done by claude. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sillyfluke 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You should have just kept the last two sentences. >The decision was indeed made by AI and humans failed in their duty to fucking verify it. The decision to leave the decision to AI was made by humans. It's on the moronic humans for not understanding the limitations and flaws of the software they are using and believing the marketing material without constantly verifying their results. How good or bad the software is an almost equally important but separate issue. | | |
| ▲ | geraneum 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The decision to leave the decision to AI The decision, to make the decision to leave the decision… So much mental gymnastics. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| what makes ai special here? a person following an SOP that involves polling an incomplete dataset will have the same 2-3 months in jail |
| |
| ▲ | pjmorris a day ago | parent | next [-] | | AI is special because it is much speedier and doesn't have second thoughts. Both of those are disadvantages in this case. | | |
| ▲ | educasean a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Any technology can be blamed for “accelerating bad decisions”. | | |
| ▲ | DirkH 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | AI is a different order of magnitude since unlike all other technology across all of human history you can hand off the task and decision-making itself entirely to the AI. It's the difference between a sword and a nuclear missile even though both are "technology" |
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | csomar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > and doesn't have second thoughts. and so is the Trump administration? |
| |
| ▲ | jimbooonooo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The person can be sued for negligent, retaliatory, and otherwise crappy decision making. | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Judicially, you can hold a person accountable for "accidentally" killing 100+ children easier than you can a technology system. The technology system will always be used as the scapegoat for the government's atrocities. I'm not sure why the "people make mistakes too" crowd can't seem to grasp this concept. | | |
| ▲ | bradleyjg a day ago | parent [-] | | Do you have three examples from 20 years in Afghanistan of analysts being held judicially accountable for target selection errors? | | |
| ▲ | impossiblefork 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | No, but the US has historically permitted even cold-blooded torture of innocents with no liability, and has asserted the state secrets privilege to prevent lawsuits and prosecutions, so it wouldn't have mattered. But that's a US-specific thing. With humans you at least have this theoretical liability-- that there is someone who could be punished. | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Seems like a weird goalpost. Doesn't invalidate my point. I didn't say it was easy to hold a person accountable, just easier than a techonology system, whose owners point the finger back at government. I think we both want to see justice for those 100+ innocent children murdered (as well as those innocent lives in Afghanistan and Iraq) by the U.S. Military's incompentence. There were never "weapons of mass destruction," although Congress was mislead to believe there was. In the Minab attack, Congress wasn't even given the option to authorize. | | |
| ▲ | bradleyjg a day ago | parent [-] | | You’re comparing the current system not to the status quo ante but to a utopian fantasy that only ever existed in your imagination. That’s a weird goalpost. | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Sorry, I was taught good Americans don't murder people unjustly. I guess that is a utopian fantasy to think good Americans were serving our country. So much for "speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves". America kills the innocent is accepted fact, I guess. The ultimate pro-life society. | | |
| ▲ | pessimizer a day ago | parent [-] | | Do you believe every TV ad you see, too? If you do, do you think you should stand in judgement of people who don't? Thinking everyone who doubts is a cynic is your problem, and you're continuing to execute on it. When the next liar rolls in and says they fixed everything, you'll be the first to run in bashing people saying "no, I don't think he did." Do you not read? Do you not know anything about what America has done? Your lecturing is not virtuous. | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Killing kids overseas is the best way to end up with dead Americans. That's not virtuous, it's just common sense. Without accountability and justice for those families that experienced unnecessary loss, they're coming for us to seek their own justice. Rightfully so. Can you not take a second to put yourself in their shoes as a parent? If the tables were turned and Iran's government "accidentally" bombed an elementary school in the U.S., I feel like you would have a different opinion on justification for revenge. In this instance on the very first day of strikes on Iran, the U.S. Military instigated future conflict by murdering hundreds of innocent children. Your children will pay the price in one way or another. Actions have consequences. Trump and his installed sycophants in Congress and the SCOTUS reject that reality, but their constituents aren't as gullible as they banked on. When they get their golden parachute, Presidential pardons, and taxpayer funded-protection, you are left holding the bag for bankrolling this atrocity. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
| |
| ▲ | 1718627440 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's not, if the status quo ante was not deemed to be moral in the first place. | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | For the sake of argument, I'm also entertaining your idea of what happens after the U.S. spends 20+ years killing innocent family members overseas. And how that strategy has changed since the Iran conflict many years later? Have we learned a single thing about entering into endless conflicts? We're bringing an end to anti-American radicalism by conducting a repeated pattern of carelessly murdering of children of potentially pro-democracy parents in these regions, while also cutting international aid? If it was my 12-year-old murdered by a "targeting error," I would dedicate my life to revenge. Not a "democracy effort" by President yam tits and his neoptism family circus failing to broker deals internationally on behalf of good intentioned American voters bankrolling this needless loss of American troops. | | |
| ▲ | Cyph0n a day ago | parent [-] | | This is a war that is generally supported by both Republicans and Democrats - the latter mostly dissenting to the fact that it is being conducted without Congressional approval. It is also a war that extends in part from the Gaza genocide, which as we know was overseen and backed by a Democratic administration. In other words, this is a war enabled and sanctioned by our government collectively, and not a particular administration or party. | | |
| ▲ | AngryData 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unless congress votes on it this is an illegal war. There is no wiggle room here because Iran was not an imminate threat to the US and took no military actions against us. | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Did representatives from the U.S. House and Sentate vote to authorize this? No. You're full of shit. It's Trump's Executive Branch demanding quotas from the Pentagon that led to bad information being used to murder 100+ children. No surprise with "No Tab Pete" at the helm of the Pentagon. Maybe if Republican and Democrat elected representatives had an oppportunity to authorize the Iran war, I would listen to you. Respectfully, your argument is bullshit. Produce voting records authorizing the war, or shut up. Every family member of a fallen U.S. Service Member should be seeking you out right now for how many American soliders have been lost to this Congressionally unauthorized war, with no results to show for it but record high Diesel prices causing American farmers to go bankrupt. | | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They haven't voted to stop it, either. We're way past 90 days, it's a choice for congress not to exercise their power. Schumer could be raising hell and disrupting everything in the senate in order to force a vote, it would be incredibly popular and define the midterms, but he's choosing not to. | | |
| ▲ | iAMkenough 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | The U.S. House has, after bad polling more Republicans are turning on Trump leading up to the midterms. | | |
| ▲ | nixon_why69 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Took them a few tries to even get there, and the senate hasn't even taken it up for consideration. Chuck Schumer wants this war, even though 60% of Americans and like 90% of democrats are against it. He just needs deniability to blame it on Trump. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | Cyph0n 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Just came back to this. I am genuinely curious: were you expecting to start a discussion with such a disrespectful reply, or were you just ragebaiting? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | stuaxo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | People often tend to stop in these situations. |
|
|
| ▲ | throw0101c 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Now, ask yourself if you want AI taking decisions around your life... it will pull numbers... someone will have a "goal" of 1000 "hits" and there you go Before anyone does this please let me know beforehand so I can invest in paperclip factories… |
|
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Lawsuit Says UnitedHealth Used AI With a 90% Error Rate to Deny Care - https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/lawsuit-says-unitedhe... - September 18th, 2026 UnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit alleges - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38299921 - November 2023 (58 comments) https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uplo... |
| |
| ▲ | teravor a day ago | parent [-] | | that smells like bullshit to be fair. if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. the situation would have to be very particular/contrived for that not to be the case. | | |
| ▲ | flossly a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What if you want errors to happen, e.g. deny care, bomb civilians; in that case 90% error rate is what you want, and plausible deniably so! | |
| ▲ | degamad a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the situation would have to be very particular The situation is very particular. When the system makes an error, I make a bigger profit. If the system made fewer errors, it would approve more things that cost me money. Why do you think I'm motivated to make fewer errors under that situation? | |
| ▲ | benlivengood a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Nah, it's cumulative errors per claim. E.g. maybe the per-decision-factor rate is somewhere over 50% but overall most claims will have errors because so many factors go into coverage/reimbursement decisions. | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. Sure if you're flipping a coin. If you're calculating a number from 1 to 100 then depending on distribution a calculation that's wrong 90% of the time is probably useless. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It sounds like something with a 90% error rate would be better to just do the opposite of what was determined and suddenly have a 10% error rate?? | | | |
| ▲ | j4yav 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I can easily build you a system that will guess the price of a stock tomorrow wrong at least 90% of the time. Even 100% wrong if you'd like. How would you use that to make fewer errors in some other system? | | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What makes you think they are financially motivated to make fewer "errors" (improper denial of care while keeping premiums)? | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > if you have a system that makes errors over 90% of the time then you have a system you can leverage to make fewer errors. member the three words "delay, deny, depose"? Insurances - and not just in the US, Germany has similarly bad stuff going on - aren't making a profit if they just blindly accept claims. It is much more profitable to deny with a vague "AI" system (or a blanket automated deny) first, and only have a first look with an actual human agent at it when the customer complains or files a lawsuit. | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha... | | |
| ▲ | 1718627440 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The word purpose exists to describe something that is independent of it's current behaviour. If you do not mean that, don't use that word. |
|
|
|
