AI Is Breaking This Thing We Call Trust

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• > AI Is Breaking This Thing We Call Trust

  An increasingly large percentage of people being lying POS grifters is breaking trust.

  AI just happens to be a tool that the laziest of that group of people leans on a lot to supercharge their grifts.

  But our massive and growing trust problem predates and is way deeper than AI.

  by georgemcbay
• No not AI. People who believe in it. But the main purpose of AI is to give answers. Not good/right answers, but just answers. That's why it is used to manufacture consent.
  by hulitu
• The assumptions we made about code always led to the biggest issues. If you assumed a junior engineer, or even a senior engineer not familiar with the local practices, would not make certain mistakes, then those mistakes always slipped through. If anything, the AI makes us be _better_ reviewers, since we need to check more of our assumptions at the door. I used to check the compiler assembly output, in case I could optimize it either by hand, or by changing my code to use a do-while instead of a for loop. I don't do that anymore. The same thing is happening with AI-generated code. I used to have to check it all very carefully, and regenerate code when the AI chose to add a whole new mechanism to the code base rather than re-using an existing mechanism, to keep the code solid. That happens less and less, and soon, it won't make sense to read over the code at all. Maybe in some specific circumstances that will be necessary, but less and less overall. And that's ok. We have moved to higher and higher levels of abstraction over the decades that I've been coding, and each time we can take on bigger problems and invent new things.
  by danjl
• The elite broke trust.

  No one made people like Sam Altman into a compulsive liar. No one made Musk call a service full self driving, and then make it return liability to the user the second it decides an accident is about to happen.

  Stop removing agency from the people making the top level decisions and reaping all the rewards.

  Would you claim that someone who took 5 shots in a row and drove home wasn’t responsible for an accident because the car was what physically did the damage?

  by lovich
• I wonder when the people will get that intelligence is not only directed at the external, but only really starts when you look at the internal (joy, pleasure, traumas, taboos, awkwardness, abuse, trust etc.). Look up the word "interoception".
  by sigalor
• > Here’s the thing: most of our habits at work still assume that producing something means you have to understand it.

  This has only ever been true in a relative sense. Until recently, one was expected to understand the software-level code they wrote. But not the machine code, or the computer internals at a deep level. You trust that those layers work. At some point in the past you couldn’t just trust that. At some point in the near future, you will just trust that the software code works. Instead you’ll just debate the spec (the prompt). Your thinking can move one level up the system hierarchy. Everyone’s can. We’ve done it before, we’ll do it again, and this won’t even be the last time it happens. Let go of the anxiety and let it happen.

  by plaidfuji
• I worry for the next generation.

  You and I have a baseline. A brain that did most of it’s developmental phase while there was still some unified accepted version of truth (even if dubious)

  Future generations will have to develop in a more splintered reality. A world where there is nothing to hold on to. Not even a dubious commonly accepted narrative

  by Havoc