If they didn't use AI and instead actively choice to terminate workers with disabilities and medical problems unfairly, that seems almost worse. Like, they're just admitting to discrimination, aren't they?

It's like being accused of exercising poor gun safety leading to someone's death and saying, "I exercise perfect gun safety, I actively chose to shoot them!"

If I am reading the article correctly, the point of the lawsuit is not that they used AI to make their staffing decisions. It's that the criteria they asked the AI to use to make those decisions directly disadvantaged people who were on approved leave for medical reasons, and whose jobs were supposed to be protected by law.

It's an important distinction. These decision makers delegated their staffing decisions to a bot. But bots are not people. If the instructions given to those bots resulted in actions that violated the law, the decision makers need to be held accountable, I the same manner they would if they made those decisions without AI assistance.

"careless people" indeed.

Question, if there's a mass of opinions online about how say: Meta should just focus on VR gaming. Specifically art projects, family fun experiences, and exercise programs...

...and dissolve all other aspects of the company in order to do philanthropy. Like if that opinion was widely repeated. Would the AIs just start defaulting to that purpose?

Could AI end up working for majority opinion? Democracy?

I suspect no right? Because you can twist AIs arm into saying anything right?