Post

honestly some of the most apocalyptic impacts of "AI" will be shit like this, and most of the doomsday dipshits predicting SkyNet can't be bothered to notice or care

arstechnica.comUnitedHealth uses AI model with 90% error rate to deny care, lawsuit allegesFor the largest health insurer in the US, AI's error rate is like a feature, not a bug.
Nicholas Grossman@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social

There have always been humans who thought: 1) The world will end soon 2) It will happen in a cool, exciting way 3) It’ll happen to me personally 4) I’ll be a martyred prophet, or a warlord, or otherwise special 5) People who don’t see this are lesser “Sexy apocalypse” is a great phrase for that

and certainly our shit corporate press would rather make ad engagement clicks off of bullshit doomsday headlines than engage in nuanced stories about the ugly collision between corruption, automation, and regulatory capture

Your post clarified something for me. When I wrote about LLMs in military targeting, a striking detail was people who followed or rubber stamped the outputs feeling absolved of responsibility. They didn't choose who to kill, they just followed the machine. Rejecting insurance claims fits that too.

Nicholas Grossman@nicholasgrossman.bsky.social

For example, LLMs are involved in military target selection. Right now. And some humans in the loop give AI recommendations a rubber stamp, expressing relief that they feel less ethically responsible. But worrying about that and figuring out how to address it is hard. "What if Ultron?" is easy.

Which is why it would be nice if the press could quickly steel itself to not using the industry's chosen nomenclature for a lot of this stuff, like "model misalignment." It's all very intentionally depersonalizing and distancing from responsibility

1 repost19 likes

No replies yet.