My point is that for Agentic AI mistakes with catastrophic consequences are just as likelly as minor mistakes, which is not the case for people because humans can spot the “obviously stupid” or “obviously dangerous”, plus they make more of an effort to avoid mistakes that can have very bad consequences, so they tend to make catastrophic mistakes will less probability than minor mistakes.
People giving psychological advice are incredibly unlikely to tell suicidal people to “kill yourself”, those giving food recipes are incredibly unlikely to say that pizza should have glue on top or those deploying software in Production are incredibly unlikely to delete the whole fucking Production environment including backups.
So even if the total rate of mistakes of an an Agentic AI was less than a human, its rate of catastropic mistakes would still be much higher than a human.
This is however not obvious unless one actually analises the risk profile of using Agentic AI in a specific place in a specific process, a skill very few people have plus it requires information about and/or understanding of Agentic AI which itself very few people have and the AI vendors activelly do not want people to have.
So you end up with an e-mail fluffing and defluffing machine being used to summarize and store medical info about patients and then down the line somebody gets given something that kills them because the data on file had a critical mistake.
This is why I said that its “the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here” that limit Agentic AI suitability: because generally you’re going to have way more catastrophic mistakes with an AI that you will even with even an human with no domain experience.
Even people with zero experience in counseling don’t tell a person who is thinking of committing suicide to “kill themselves” and even those with zero culinary experience don’t tell others they’re supposed to put glue on top pizza when you’re making it.
To do that a human needs not just have zero experience but actually have no common sense whatsoever.
Further, even with such people, it’s only if they’ve been given the tools to do things with a huge impact that it becomes a problem: that’s pretty much “child with a loaded gun” situations.
The number of humans that inept given such power is minuscule (pretty much just children given loaded guns), whilst every single Agentic AI out there is that stupid and they’re currently being given “loaded guns” all the time.
The problem is exactly that Agentic AIs are being given adult responsibilities and have the capacity for complex operations whilst having the common sense and reasoning abilities equivalent to those of a small child.
Its not because humans make those mistakes all the time. It doesn’t need to be %100, it just needs to be like 95% to be better than humans.
My point is that for Agentic AI mistakes with catastrophic consequences are just as likelly as minor mistakes, which is not the case for people because humans can spot the “obviously stupid” or “obviously dangerous”, plus they make more of an effort to avoid mistakes that can have very bad consequences, so they tend to make catastrophic mistakes will less probability than minor mistakes.
People giving psychological advice are incredibly unlikely to tell suicidal people to “kill yourself”, those giving food recipes are incredibly unlikely to say that pizza should have glue on top or those deploying software in Production are incredibly unlikely to delete the whole fucking Production environment including backups.
So even if the total rate of mistakes of an an Agentic AI was less than a human, its rate of catastropic mistakes would still be much higher than a human.
This is however not obvious unless one actually analises the risk profile of using Agentic AI in a specific place in a specific process, a skill very few people have plus it requires information about and/or understanding of Agentic AI which itself very few people have and the AI vendors activelly do not want people to have.
So you end up with an e-mail fluffing and defluffing machine being used to summarize and store medical info about patients and then down the line somebody gets given something that kills them because the data on file had a critical mistake.
This is why I said that its “the worst possible consequence of a mistake done here” that limit Agentic AI suitability: because generally you’re going to have way more catastrophic mistakes with an AI that you will even with even an human with no domain experience.
That’s just not even true. People with no experience are going to fuck shit up completely. We have a human president and look where that’s getting us.
Even people with zero experience in counseling don’t tell a person who is thinking of committing suicide to “kill themselves” and even those with zero culinary experience don’t tell others they’re supposed to put glue on top pizza when you’re making it.
To do that a human needs not just have zero experience but actually have no common sense whatsoever.
Further, even with such people, it’s only if they’ve been given the tools to do things with a huge impact that it becomes a problem: that’s pretty much “child with a loaded gun” situations.
The number of humans that inept given such power is minuscule (pretty much just children given loaded guns), whilst every single Agentic AI out there is that stupid and they’re currently being given “loaded guns” all the time.
The problem is exactly that Agentic AIs are being given adult responsibilities and have the capacity for complex operations whilst having the common sense and reasoning abilities equivalent to those of a small child.