this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
259 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

84731 readers
3124 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

The list of valid use cases for AI is bound by “what is the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here”

Its not because humans make those mistakes all the time. It doesn't need to be %100, it just needs to be like 95% to be better than humans

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

My point is that for Agentic AI mistakes with catastrophic consequences are just as likelly as minor mistakes, which is not the case for people because humans can spot the "obviously stupid" or "obviously dangerous", plus they make more of an effort to avoid mistakes that can have very bad consequences, so they tend to make catastrophic mistakes will less than minor mistakes.

People giving psychological advice are incredibly unlikely to tell suicidal people to "kill yourself", those giving food recipes are incredibly unlikely to say that pizza should have glue on top or those deploying software in Production are incredibly unlikely to delete the whole fucking Production environment including backups.

So even if the total rate of mistakes of an an Agentic AI was less than a human, its rate of catastropic mistakes would still be much higher than a human.

This is however not obvious unless one actually analises the risk profile of using Agentic AI in a specific place in a specific process, a skill very few people have plus it requires information about and/or understanding of Agentic AI which itself very few people have and the AI vendors activelly do not want people to have.

So you end up with an e-mail fluffing and defluffing machine being used to summarize and store medical info about patients and then down the line somebody gets given something that kills them because the data on file had a critical mistake.

This is why I said that its "the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here" that limit Agentic AI suitability: because generally you're going to have way more catastrophic mistakes with an AI that you will even with even an human with no domain experience.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

When human makes a mistake, they learn, they continue to enrich humanity, they make a blueprint how not to make the same mistake again, if not for humanity, but at least for themselves. It also fuels some creativity so one mistake might lead to something good later.
When a mistake generator makes a mistake, it's just another mistake in a pile of mistakes that only worsen our collective human experience.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

When human makes a mistake, they learn, they continue to enrich humanity

Very few humans do that. Vast majority is far more sloppy than any AI slop I've ever seen.

[–] Nalivai@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

Don't fall into this nihilistic bullshit, if humans weren't capable of learning we wouldn't be here in the first place. This narrative isn't true and doesn't help. It's all invented by religions of old to better control humanity, and it wasn't true then and isn't true now