"AI can make mistakes, always check the results"

[daniel_blake@mastodon.top]

@jenniferplusplus

I think that being liable for the mistakes an AI that you use is only fair... They who live by the sword etc.

[soulsource@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@Daniel_Blake @jenniferplusplus The problems start if you aren't using the AI because you want to, but because you got ordered to use it.

Cory Doctorow has written a lot about what he calls Reverse Centaurs - persons having to work for a machine instead of persons using a machine. For instance:
https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble/#u-washington

[pidaroso@mastodon.social]

@jenniferplusplus s

[bredroll@mas.to]

@jenniferplusplus i agree, but I also think that LLMs being unreliable is part of the business model, if it gave acceptable answers first time you'd only ask one question, if it messes up slightly you type more stuff, you rephrase the prompt or rewrite the spec, all of which are more tokens that your org will actually pay for. its like builtin #enshittification from the start.

[waimeafalls@ohai.social]

@jenniferplusplus AI appears to "learn from its mistakes" and amplify them...

[keithjones@social.vivaldi.net]

@jenniferplusplus
AI is a nifty tool, but blindly trusting its output is foolish. AI should not be treated as an unquestionable authority, which I've personally see happen in the workplace. The novelty of AI makes it enjoyable for now, yet companies rushing to replace human experience and expertise with AI will soon see quality erode and trust vanish altogether. When that happens these companies will learn that once quality and trust are lost, winning them back is far harder than maintaining them.

[madengineering@mastodon.cloud]

@jenniferplusplus ai is the intern on seven tabs of acid. He can no longer tell the difference between truth and fiction, and this will lead to lots of mistakes, most of which will lead to you staring at your monitor in confusion.
You must at a minimum verify the work, make sure it corresponds to reality, and get ready to wtf.

[janxdevil@sfba.social]

@jenniferplusplus Note well: whether “you” are actually liable for the errors made in the output produce by AI in response to your prompting depends entirely on whether “you” are someone privileged with impunity for your own errors in judgment or you instead are someone accountable for forced errors outside your own control.

[kerravonsen@mastodon.au]

@jenniferplusplus I am quite confused as to how you concluded that I said that, when I've been pointing out that it is human error

[worik@mastodon.social]

@jenniferplusplus

LLMs do not make mistakes on their own, you make mistakes using them

> "AI can make mistakes, always check the results"

> I fucking loathe this phrase and everything that goes into it.

Why? It is good advice and important when using LLMs.

I use LLMs every day in my coding practice, and they do make errors (thank you compiler)

LLMs are a tool, and must be wielded. When you use them you are responsible for the results

[luc0x61@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@jenniferplusplus There's a misunderstanding, an "AI can" is like a "worms can", that's the subject. Now it all makes sense.

[srvanderplas@datavis.social]

@kerravonsen @emily_s @jenniferplusplus or a gamma ray and bit flip. But that should probably be caught.

[kerravonsen@mastodon.au]

@jenniferplusplus The computer is wrongly permitted to be wrong. I thought I was agreeing with you.

[spacelifeform@infosec.exchange]

@jenniferplusplus

AI *WILL* make mistakes. Do not use.

[bolomkxxviii@mastodon.social]

@jenniferplusplus
They want us to pay for a service they won't stand behind. That should tell you everything you need to know.

[azonenberg@ioc.exchange]

@gbargoud @Crystal_Fish_Caves @jenniferplusplus if the American insurance industry can find a way to require insurance for something, they will

[hasen@hachyderm.io]

@jenniferplusplus fr fr

[foriamcj@infosec.exchange]

@jenniferplusplus

"What it actually says is "AI is _permitted_ to make mistakes; _you are liable_ for the results, whether you check them or not".

Agreed... but also.. this is by design

"They" are intentionally designing a system that will (both intentionally & negligently) be used to inflict harms.. while also removing any "accountability" for the harms they inflict

A normal reasonable person sees that old slide deck from IBM about how:
"computers cannot be trusted to make decisions because computers can never be held accountable" as a dystopian warning

Tech Bros see it as:
"an opportunity to profit from 'Creating the Torment Nexus' while insulating themselves from any consequences for their own actions"