Comment by xlayn
9 hours 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...
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."
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
AI is special because it is much speedier and doesn't have second thoughts. Both of those are disadvantages in this case.
Any technology can be blamed for “accelerating bad decisions”.
> and doesn't have second thoughts.
and so is the Trump administration?
The person can be sued for negligent, retaliatory, and otherwise crappy decision making.
People often tend to stop in these situations.
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.
Do you have three examples from 20 years in Afghanistan of analysts being held judicially accountable for target selection errors?
8 replies →
Lawsuit Says UnitedHealth Used AI With a 90% Error Rate to Deny Care - https://litigationtracker.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uplo...
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.
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!
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??
1 reply →
> 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.
> 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?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
What makes you think they are financially motivated to make fewer "errors" (improper denial of care while keeping premiums)?