[_wire_]

> Let's assume that AI is human level (it's not, but humour me)

OK

> Now something goes wrong. A customer isn't getting what they ordered. What do you do about it?

What do you do when something goes wrong with a human?

Do that.

End of story.

[danpalmer]

This is my point, you can't. You can't hold an AI accountable in the way you can with a human, whether that's accountable to a contract or accountable to the law, and the only ways in which you can hold an AI accountable involve escalating to a human, at which point we're back to where we are now without AI and requiring essentially the same software and business processes.

[paulddraper]

If it's human level, you can.

You train it, you replace it with a more suitable worker, whatever.

You've answered your own dilemma with the premise.

[devnull3]

Also AI (as promised) will deliver a customized solution to an extent that for a human to even solve the problems in it will need a lot of context. This in itself makes it dependent on humans. Also you have to factor in knowledge redundancy, non-availability of your personnel. So you will always have to account for more people than AI promises.

[ornornor]

You can reason with a human. You can’t with an AI.

And if you got rid of all your human tools because AI, how do you put a human back in the loop?

[portaouflop]

We assumed it was human level in this thought experiment. I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to reason with a human level AGI

[ornornor]

Are there any consequences for an AGI?