• limer@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I asked computer if I should read the article, it said no. Am I in an abusive relationship?

    That is ridiculous, clearly. I’ll use mainstream search engine, tailor made to my needs, to make sure it cannot happen

  • onnekas@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    I generally agree.

    Imagine however, that a machine objectively makes the better decisions than any person. Should we then still trust the humans decision just to have someone who is accountable?

    What is the worth of having someone who is accountable anyway? Isn’t accountability just an incentive for humans to not just fuck things up? It’s also nice for pointing fingers if things go bad - but is there actually any value in that?

    Additionally: there is always a person who either made the machine or deployed the machine. IMO the people who deploy a machine and decide that this machine will now be making decisions should be accountable for those actions.

    • Maroon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Imagine however, that a machine

      That’s hypothetical. In the real world, in the human society, the humans who are part of corporations and receiving profits by making/selling these computers must also bear the responsibility.

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Tbf that leads to the problem of:

        Company/Individual makes program that is in no way meant for making management decision.

        Someone else comes and deploys that program to make management decisions.

        The ones that made that program couldn’t stop the ones that deployed it from deploying it.

        Even if the maker aimed to make a decision-making program, and marketed it as so. Whoever deployed it is ultimately the responsible for it. As long as the maker doesn’t fake tests or certifications of course, I’m sure that would violate many laws.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The premise is that a computer must never make a management decision. Making a program capable of management decisons already failed. The deployment and use of that program to that end is already built upon that failure.

      • onnekas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I believe those who deploy the machines should be responsible in the first place. The corporations who make/sell those machines should be accountable if they deceptively and intentionally program those machines to act maliciously or in somebody else’s interest.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 hours ago

    A complete one-eighty nowadays…“As a highly paid “business” exec I have no ideas…computer, tell me what to do.”

    • Wojwo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You know “accountability”, it’s when an executive fucks up and gets to retire early with a multimillion dollar golden parachute.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 day ago

    Executives today:

    This means if we put AI somewhere in our decision making, we can no longer be held accountable.

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Yup!

      “I’m sorry but your contact is terminated because our management software designated your position as redundant and unnecessary. It wasn’t our decision to let you go, but it was our decision to begin using that software and it was our decision to program it to try to fire as many employees as possible, but it’s not our decision and therefore we can’t be held responsible. Goodbye.”

      • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The same argument for cartels. “We didn’t all increase our prices to the exact same amount, we just paid a consulting company to tell us which price we should use. Of course our competitors used the exact same company, but that’s just a coincidence”.

  • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    21 hours ago

    The computer can’t be held accountable, but the programmer and operator can.

    I could go on a whole thing about mission rules and command decisions here, but I’m sick of typing for the day.

  • sunbeam60
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 hours ago

    This endless separation into “managers” and “not managers” is so unproductive. Everyone manages something. That’s why you’re employed.

    • Pat_Riot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Sounds like something a manager would say. Some of us produce, create value through our labor, while some sit their fat asses at a desk and only grace the production floor to make everybody’s day just a little more difficult. So you just get on back up there to the big house and let us handle things out here where you can’t hack it.

    • kadu@scribe.disroot.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Everyone manages something.

      Most workers manage something and create value. Managers are only managing, remove them and nothing changes - usually things get more optimized, actually.

  • Heikki2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 day ago

    As a US citizen, this logic need to be applied to corperations. The C_Os make all the decisions for the company, the Campany should not be held as responsible for the shitty actions of its Board. The Board should be held accountable for the companies actions be required to served by all the C_Os. I say served, I mean fines and prison time ,in all cases, as a fine is paid personally by the person and time is served aslo bu the person.

    I know fine are just a temporary for “legal fo .a price” fine should be paid to hut them so Retirement accounts are taken, future earning are taken, income from salary+bonus at time of infraction are taken, and close loops of off shore accounts

    • Rooster326@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Agreed except you better not touch my extremely meager retirement account for some shit the CEO did. I will go full uno bomber.

      • Heikki2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Thats where the legislation can put the lawyer talk in to address it is the personal accounts of the C_Os

  • Salvo@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    2 days ago

    Managers aren’t being held accountable for their management decisions either.

    “Oh, I sacked our entire workforce and sold all the company assets, so the figures will look amazing this month.”

    <one month later>

    “Oh, the figures are down this month, a golden handshake!? Thank you very much.”

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Most industries management fails upward. Definitely true in Pharma.

      There are CEOs with a 20 year string of development failures, but they bring “vast experience”.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      It depends, though.

      There are cases where parts of a struggling company is worth less than the sum of its parts. At that point, the fiscally prudent option is to sell it off, either in one piece or multiple pieces. There are plenty of cases in American corporate history where the best option is to cut losses and leave a market.

      That being said, I’m surprised that private equity is still allowed to be a thing given the massive disparity shown in how a lot of financial disparity in how a lot of private equity companies run their companies against their fiduciary responsibilities to their companies’ stockholders and bondholders.