Not to mention an increase in damaging severe weather.

Even people who like it warmer probably don't like having their house blown away to Oz.

Unfortunately, it has a way of becoming your problem as they strain medical resources, continue to drive global warming and run around spreading their infectious diseases.

The key is to use the AI more sensibly. Let it find things in code. Even let it look at possible bugs in the form of where does it "describe bug". Even let it propose changes. DO NOT let it make the changes, just show them. Do not just take it's word for it, take the shown code as a starting point but re-do it for maintainability after sanity checking it.

THEN it can be a useful tool.

And the US dissapears people to prison on trumped up charges and widely uses them as slave labour, so what's your point?

It's not the SCREEN that does the damage, it's the brain rot the screen is used to access. Also the amount of time speant with the screen. Moderation is good. This shouldn't surprise people, but since it is a nuanced understanding and not just screen bad!, it will.

BOTH screwed up. The system shouldn't have made the match and the human should have done a better job seeing that the match was wrong. I'll go one larger and say the people who created the procedures screwed up because they didn't make allowances for the possibility of the first two screw-ups.

The problem is, people have been over-trusting technology since technology was invented. Consider the '70s when corporate representatives were so fond on the phrase "But the computer says...". Yes, you could hear the bold italics in their voice, as if it was the infallible final word on everything.

If THE COMPUTER says you shoplifted, rest assured, some dolt in a suit will treat that like God's own word booming from the clouds.

But every person who sets foot in that store probably "kinda" looks like someone who has shoplifted. And since shoplifters look like everybody else, everyone COULD be a shoplifter.

Many have voted with hairspray and a sawzall.

It's worse, they don't have to go sentient at all. The black death wasn't sentient but it wiped out whole towns anyway.

Rogue agents with no awareness have already demonstrated that they will act against any entity with a conflicting goal, including humans.

IIRC, more than one lawyer has gotten in to hot water because of AI hallucinations in legal briefs. They sign their name to those, they are responsible.

The legal process is adversarial but it is not anything goes. Fabricating evidence and perjury are out of bounds for example.

I think this falls into that category.

OTOH, if the court DID use AI to make decisions, the whole court would invalidate itself, so there is some ethical wiggle room.

AI should have no agency at all. It should only advise the human in the loop who is actually responsible for what happens.

Actually, without a need to pay for servers (virtual or other), it offers freedom from sponsors that want the conversation kept profitable and ad friendly.

To me it sounds like a newb wrote a web app and didn't quite know what an API is.