[yetihehe]

> If it’s a human level AI you tell it to solve the issue with the company’s philosophy in mind and wonder why off the shelf human level AI doesn’t have that in its “system prompt” or whatever term it will be.

That IF is very big case here.

> This whole problem is blown out of something that every AI-phobe seems to assume but keeps secret, which is a common trope at this point.

It happens again and again CURRENTLY that AI's behave exactly like Djinns. They do what you tell them, not always what you mean. Like, "Geologists Recommend Eating At Least One Small Rock Per Day". They make perfectly coherent advice, but sometimes it's hilariously wrong and AI doesn't know it's wrong. But people trust it anyway.

[wruza]

Yes, but that IF was introduced by this subthread’s OP themselves. Statements like that make no sense if it’s possible and not applicable otherwise. And everyone seems to be ok with that on HN, regularly. Notice how inconvenient comments get simply ignored.

What current “AI” does is irrelevant in this context, but I think you’re overdramatizing on this tangent a little. Almost everyone knows that 2024 AI still hallucinates and you can’t take its output at face value. Those who don’t know may be still researching or just generally gullible/nonanalytic. There’s no problem here, taking our regular baseline into account. People believe yellow press and influencers everyday.