|
|
|
|
|
|
by russelldjimmy
30 days ago
|
|
|
What are you even on about mate? Sure accountability doesn’t prevent all mistakes. Guess what, nothing prevents all mistakes. Accountability can help prevent some mistakes some of the time. It sounds like you’re suggesting getting rid of the concept of accountability because it doesn’t prevent ALL mistakes. Way to throw the baby out with the bath water. |
|
|
Where on earth are you getting this?
Accountability alone is insufficient, and the things that actually prevent mistakes don't require it. The mechanisms that do work: independent reviews, redundancy, formal verification where applicable, staged rollouts, testing against adversarial inputs... these all function on the artifact, not on whether or not the entity producing the artifact can be held accountable. A formally verified proof is correct whether a human or an LLM generated it. A code review catches the same bug regardless of who's liable for shipping it.
The argument isn't "let's get rid of accountability", the argument is "it's ridiculous to suggest that the reason you shouldn't use AI is that AI lacks accountability - lacking accountability isn't the reason AI makes mistakes, and adding accountability to AI won't prevent AI from making mistakes - the answer to preventing mistakes with AI rests in process, and accountability does nothing to inherently ensure that".
Accountability is nothing but a transmission mechanism, and is blind to the values instilled through it. Accountability is literally what caused the 737 MAX disasters. The FAA decided it was more accountable to industry efficiency than it was to safety when it allowed Boeing to self-certify, which violated a process control of independent reviews. Boeing's board decided it wanted to more accountable to shareholder value maximization than it was to safety when it allowed MCAS to experience scope creep without re-review, which violated a process control of formal verification. Boeing's designers and engineers decided to be accountable to shareholder value maximization when they decided to make MCAS rely on only one of two flight control computers, which violated a process control of redundancy. Engineers at Boeing flagged these failures, but they ignored when management decided to be more accountable to shipping on time, which violated a process control of incorporating adversarial inputs and feedback.
Accountability did not prevent these mistakes, it caused them. Failure to abide by process controls caused the mistakes. Adding more accountability wouldn't have prevented these mistakes; maintaining strict adherence to the process controls that used to be in place would have.