To put a finger on a word: David Hume’s “is vs ought” problem.

Data can describe to you what exists. But it can’t tell you what you value.

What you describe is people who can’t tell the difference, and who let the machine (data) make the value judgments.

I don't think the problem OP has is anything so metaphysical as the fact/value distinction. This is a business, after all. It has goals (e.g., making money) that the model surely can grasp. It sounds to me more like a breakdown of organizational control owing to a lack of transparency in the tools and a general ignorance among the management.

Imo, most companies ought not to exist.

The parent comment is interesting, but ultimately I think in this case, the AI is actually revealing something about the true nature about their place of employment, a nature that has always been there versus some mutation caused by the prevalence of the AI itself.

A lot of money can be made purely algorithmically. Think market markers or other algorithmic trading. The ought vs is divide is quite narrow here. It's not a moral question, the "value" is in the money to be made. It's actually not a great example to invoke Hume's problem. Many companies essentially are chasing a similar spread, its just less obvious. Few people ever ask what "ought" to exist. If the power of AI makes more businesses operate more reactively and algorithmically, because of more data or processing power or w/e that really is probably in keeping with their alignment and goals. Because the ultimate ought for a company is we ought to be making more money. So, in many ways the ought is really not that interesting, the is is satisfactory provided the return on whatever their version of a spread is keeps improving.

The number of companies that actually "invent" useful things and thus ask even vaguely meaningful "ought" questions are extremely slim. The vast majority of employees are, at best, accessories to these questions, even in software where even before AI many of us were not doing very interesting work. There is a lot of essentially rebuilding your competitors same layers on top of common libraries and standards where the actual interesting work is done. Really not unlike asking AI to cook you up a boilerplate by leveraging the vast work of a fraction of SWEs who maintain OSS tools. It's the same pattern and the same sort of behavior, just now your "layering" is becoming automated to the point of irrelevance.

What the parent misses - the real promise of AI is paradoxically, that it will allow more people to ask actually interesting ought questions as AI owns more of the spreads. In the same way a human does not compete with an algorithmic trader, and at some level, really doesn't care. The more algorithmic your business becomes, the less any individual human "value judgement" matters. And really this is desirable, because again, most companies are not asking interesting value questions anyway. The end state of this you are missing is these companies are going to cease to exist. In the optimistic case this will free you up to ask more interesting value questions - like how do I value all my UBI enabled free time. In the less optimistic case your value judgments will be more dire - like who do I sacrifice given the Terminators are at the door and we only have x quantity of supplies left.

This is the other paradox. When questions of what ought to happen are of paramount importance, you are probably finding yourself in a very undesirable situation. It's easy to valorize the ought problem from a distance, it is much much harder to actually engage with it when it actually matters. In many ways, the relative luxuries of society and civilization are derived from taking such questions out of most of our hands. This is (perhaps surprisingly) true even as you climb the ladder of power:

I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the bond market.