i am confused by this sentence. are AIs not hallucinating? is that a fictional claim? am i misunderstanding or is there a "not" missing at the *?
that makes no sense to me.
it's ok for AI to run the world because they just make up stuff anyways? don't we want the opposite? in order to allow AI to run the world, shouldn't we believe that they are foolproof and are always able to figure out the correct answer?
It's kind of a moot point anyways, because Humans are highly averse to making sure their actions are logically sound. Take politics for example, not just the silly day today goings on of it, but more importantly the system that underlies it: it is beyond consideration.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail_(politics)
"The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club."
yes, but the illogical decisions of humans can be intuited or made to be understood, and thus also somewhat predicted. for example, a human deciding over someones social security benefits can be expected make a somewhat rational even if illogical decision, and in particular, past performance of a human can predict future performance, whereas for an AI this is completely unpredictable and therefore has a much higher risk of going wrong unexpectedly. also, humans can be reasoned with, again with a somewhat predictable outcome.
Missing counteracting force: set theory
how do these things relate to our discussion?
Insufficient depth in semiotics shapes how one thinks.
Importantly: it is generally not possible to take such ideas seriously, because of culture. So humanity stumbles half blindly but confidently into the future, oblivious to much of what is going on.