#ai errors

[fandomswhatnot]

Just thought i'd post these HTF AI replies

[wat3rm370n]

Nothing said by or about the AI industry can be trusted at this point because there are too many speculative bets swirling.

Until this AI speculation bubble deflates, nothing said about LLMs, chatbots, data centers, or anything related can really be trusted because people have placed big bets on it with insider info they don’t want the people on the other end of the bets to know about.

The big stories about AI so powerful it will find bugs and ruin systems, I believe it’s a decoy, a sleight of hand where you’re looking there and missing the really huge AI disaster waiting to happen: People using AI slop error filled output from LLMs in very serious situations, and that bad information pollution poisoning a lot of very serious projects and systems, while the humans in the loop set on vigilance tasks have, like all humans do, automation bias, the tendency to just blindly trust an automated system, and on top of that alarm fatigue, and at this point isn’t proofreading anything at all anymore, if they ever were actually bothering to fact check every bit of output by the chatbots. Would you use a calculator that you had to fact check every single calculation because 10% was wrong? Or does everyone accept this extremely high error rate and just stop bothering no matter how serious the consequences? And like they say, they’re putting this everywhere “whether you like it or not” so these errors are being haplessly deployed in your credit scores and in your medical records, it’s in our food supply, and it’s in all our phones and every surveillance system deployed everywhere.

There’s a bug in the system, that’s for sure; it’s the error-prone AI tech tools being forced into everything. The tool is the bug.

[onepawproductions]

AI Errors!!

The process of generating AI images can lead to some funny results

For example: rendering out The Picnic Date, I got the good image....but it took nearly three days of work

Some images render quickly, within 10 minutes. Some confuse the Ai, and rather hilariously, too:

Eventually, I just gave up on getting Draco to hold a strawberry up to Hermione's lips. It confused the hell out of the Ai. Baskets of strawberries. Bushels.

And for some reason, each time I try and render Draco in a happy, romantic setting...the first few frames ALWAYS have both people looking like Draco

Ai: Draco Malfoy... Romantic... Processing! Processing! ERROR: Draco Malfoy is in love with himself! Solution -->girl is also Draco Malfoy. Obviously

[wat3rm370n]

Questions people should ask before using generative AI “tools” in the workplace.

Curmudgucation 6 Questions Teachers Should Ask Before Implementing AI From Forbes.com Peter Greene Dec 09, 2025

I’ll save time here: One question is appropriate: Do I want to maybe get sued for something or be uninsurable?

My letter to reps:

Generative AI with all it’s problems has no place in the classroom when the major insurance companies are calling AI errors an overwhelming liability threat, a non-priceable risk, and want to exclusion in policies from claims that involve anything to do with AI or chatbot errors. This should be a big clue that these tools are NOT appropriate anywhere but especially not where mistakes are not ok like healthcare and education.

Please feel free to copy or repurpose for your own letters to reps.

Insurance companies don’t want to pick up the tabs on AI slop and dangerous chatbot errors. These LLM products are so risky and potentially dangerous that even the insurance industry won’t touch the liability. Chloe Humbert Nov 30, 2025

Financial Times - Insurers retreat from AI cover as risk of multibillion-dollar claims mounts - AIG, Great American and WR Berkley seek permission to limit liability from AI agents and chatbots Lee Harris in London and Cristina Criddle in San Francisco Published Nov 23 2025 AIG, Great American and WR Berkley are among the groups that have recently sought permission from US regulators to offer policies excluding liabilities tied to businesses deploying AI tools including chatbots and agents. The insurance industry’s reticence to provide comprehensive cover comes as companies have rushed to adopt the cutting-edge technology. This has already led to embarrassing and costly mistakes when models “hallucinate” or make things up. One exclusion WR Berkley proposed would bar claims involving “any actual or alleged use” of AI, including any product or service sold by a company “incorporating” the technology.

This link has since been deleted:

Major Insurers Want Out of AI Coverage as ‘Black Box’ Risk Grows AIG, Great American, WR Berkley seek regulatory approval to exclude AI liability by The Tech Buzz PUBLISHED: Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 1:04 PM EST | UPDATED: Sun, Dec 7, 2025, 10:48 PM EST The insurance industry’s retreat from AI coverage represents more than corporate caution - it’s a referendum on whether artificial intelligence is actually ready for widespread enterprise deployment. These are companies that routinely insure oil rigs, nuclear plants, and space launches. If they won’t touch AI, what does that tell us about the technology everyone’s racing to implement? The industry has good reason to be spooked. Google’s AI Overview falsely accused a solar company of legal troubles earlier this year, triggering a $110 million lawsuit. Air Canada got stuck honoring a discount its chatbot completely invented after a customer took the airline to small claims court. Most dramatically, fraudsters used a digitally cloned executive to steal $25 million from London engineering firm Arup during what appeared to be a legitimate video conference. But individual payouts aren’t what’s keeping insurance executives up at night. It’s the systemic risk that keeps them awake - the nightmare scenario where a widely deployed AI model malfunctions and triggers thousands of claims simultaneously.

I wonder why.

Image is screenshot of a google search bar with the quoted search “a referendum on whether artificial intelligence is actually ready for widespread enterprise deployment” And the search result shows The Tech Buzz article with the headline “Major Insurers Want Out of AI Coverage as ‘Black Box’ Risk Grows”

[wat3rm370n]

Probable AI error anecdotes.

Probable AI error anecdotes.

Listen now | Don't Wait For Everybody - Episode 039

[wat3rm370n]

The energy crisis has one simple fix we could try.

My letter to reps:

The energy crisis has one simple fix we could try. Stop the tech tycoons and their companies from pursuing their weird techno-rapture religion aspirations for world authoritarian dominance via “AGI” & mass surveillance, and bonus it will clean up the information pollution now being embedded like asbestos into everything from the unfixable percentage of AI slop output.

Please feel free to copy or repurpose for your own letters to reps.

[wat3rm370n]

Another police dept targeted an innocent person based solely on AI facial recognition.

Police could've easily confirmed the woman had an alibi and didn't have the stolen money, but instead succumbed to automation bias and harmed an innocent person instead.

Based solely on AI facial recognition Fargo police decided a middle aged lady in Tennessee, who’d never been to North Dakota, was the woman on some surveillance video committing bank fraud in Fargo. They arrested her at gunpoint while she was babysitting grandchildren. Based solely on shoddy AI facial recognition, the police kept her in jail for 6 months, during which time she lost her house, her dog, and her car. She finally got released on Christmas eve when a defense attorney was able to present her bank records to the police. It was proven she had an alibi 1,200 miles away. The police didn’t even offer her an apology, let alone pay for her to get back home to Tennessee, so local defense attorneys chipped in to pay for a hotel room and food for her to eat on Christmas Eve and Christmas, and a charity organization then paid for her to get back to Tennessee.

I’m hoping that before long, she’ll have sued the pants off Fargo so bad that the taxpayers on the hook for doing right by Angela and demand that the police stop using this sloppy garbage AI.

And it’s a lesson to other municipalities, like my own, to stop using technology from these profiteering companies who don’t disclose the flaws and security vulnerabilities. While of course there’s never enough money for public services, and nobody ever asks HoW yOu GoInG tO pAy fOr tHaT? when it comes to the surveillance police state!

My letter to reps:

I read a story about a woman in Tennessee who was jailed wrongfully, and as a result lost her dog, lost her house, and her car, solely because some crap AI tool was used to identify her in error, on a surveillance camera in a state she’d never been to. Her bank records could’ve been accessed by authorities in North Dakota, her whereabouts were later confirmed that she had an alibi 1,200 miles away. But police chose to arrest this grandma at gunpoint and jail her for 6 months based solely on some crap AI facial recognition tool. This is just the latest story like this I’ve heard, there have been so many. There was an incident in Colorado where police harangued an innocent woman, insisting that AI had identified her for sure, forcing her to “prove her innocence” against a porch theft video in another town, when any human looking at the video would’ve seen that it wasn’t the same lady. How many times are innocent people going to be hassled, jailed, or worse by law enforcement wrongfully before somebody does something to stop grave errors by police who get snookered by AI sales PR, and rely on AI having succumbed to automation bias, just going along with whatever the computer told them what to do. How many municipalities are going to waste taxpayer money inevitably paying out lawsuits for the harm from this inept behaviour stemming from the use of unreliable “technology”. Nobody should trust shoddy and error-prone AI systems and these janky flock systems and other security camera AI systems marketed to localities who don’t understand that the risks and the flaws in these systems are unavoidable, because of how it works. There should be jail time and monetary penalties for individual officers of the law and government officials who make decisions based solely on AI systems where it leads to harm to members of the public, in order to disincentivize automation bias on the job. But I think AI systems like this should just be outlawed where they do harm to humans. This is obviously NOT a reliable technology, and prone to misuse. This is not “progress”. It’s a public safety failure.

Please feel free to copy or repurpose for your own letters to reps.

A lot of municipalities push through buying these systems on the sly, without public input. And in fact, there’s been reports that the surveillance companies actually coach public officials on how to sneak it in without public input.

Tennessee grandmother jailed after AI facial recognition error links her to fraud Angela Lipps spent nearly six months in jail after AI software linked her to a North Dakota bank fraud case Marina Dunbar Thu 12 Mar 2026 16.29 EDT The Guardian Angela Lipps, 50, spent nearly six months in jail after Fargo police identified her as a suspect in an organized bank fraud case using facial recognition software, according to south-east North Dakota news outlet InForum. Lipps told the outlet she had never been to North Dakota and did not commit the crimes. Lipps, a mother of three and grandmother of five, said she has lived most of her life in north-central Tennessee. She had never been on an airplane until authorities flew her to North Dakota last year to face charges. In July, US marshals arrested Lipps at her Tennessee home while she was babysitting four children. She said she was taken away at gunpoint and booked into a county jail as a fugitive from justice from North Dakota.

The article about Angela Lipps goes on to mention other cases where AI surveillance cameras have screwed up massively, and they’re stories that I hadn’t heard about, despite the fact I’ve seen several such stories before too. Including one in Colorado where police forced a woman to “prove her innocence” against the say so of the AI tool, when mostly humans looking at the video would’ve probably known immediately he had the wrong lady.

Colorado officer who used AI cameras to falsely accuse woman of theft disciplined with extra training Columbine Valley’s police chief said in a Nov. 11 letter that the sergeant’s demeanor was “unprofessional and inconsistent with the standards expected of a sworn officer” Olivia Prentzel 5:32 PM MST on Nov 12, 2025 The Colorado Sun Cottrell said Milliman’s demeanor was “unprofessional and inconsistent with the standards expected of a sworn officer” of the Columbine Valley Police Department, but did not cite any errors in his use of the surveillance footage. The sergeant told Elser that based on footage from a Flock camera in the neighboring town of Bow Mar and doorbell camera footage that he had “no doubt” that she had stolen a package from a porch. “You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the encounter reviewed by The Colorado Sun. “Just as an example, you’ve driven there about 20 times in the last month,” he added. Elser, a financial advisor, asked several times to watch the video that Milliman insisted proved her guilt, but he refused to show her. And when Elser offered up footage from her Rivian’s onboard cameras to prove her innocence, Milliman said she could bring it to court.

There are so many stories like this, there are stories from 2024, and there are stories from this week.

And apparently in my city the DCCC is pushing to expand the surveillance state with our Democratic Mayor Paige Cognetti, who is running for Congress, funneling taxpayer money toward surveillance state equipment and services, and also with Governor Josh Shapiro and others having given millions of taxpayer dollars to literal bank where Cognetti's father-in-law is on the board to boot, to provide a brand new huge facility to implement AI malpractice and mass surveillance in Scranton against the citizens. The police chief called it a “goldmine” for some reason and I don’t think the police should have dollar signs in their eyes like this. For once I’d like to see a politician here in Pennsylvania not doing nepotism, and not pushing trickle down economics lies, and not pushing for a surveillance police state while pushing for-profit healthcare on us and saying there’s no money for anything good. What’s worse is that it seems the Chorus-type paid influencer circuit has been told to parrot the talking point that Paige Cognetti “cleaned up" Scranton as if we were were all lowly filthy people before fancy Paige got here after working at Goldman Sachs and working in the Obama administration. Of course we all know that “cleaned up the city” is a dogwhistle for police racially profiling and jailing non-white people. And racist advertising didn’t help Matt Cartwright keep that seat, he lost to Rob Bresnahan. Because conservatives don’t just start voting for Dems just because they use racist dog whistles when they can just have one of their own trusted non-carpetbagger Republican politicians in office, and dem voters just stay home when they feel demoralized by the choices.

It’s also terrible that politicians who make huge purchases of flawed systems seem to be the last to learn that they’ve been had by profiteering on shoddy and flawed technology, usually after the damage is done, and a lawsuit is in progress, costing taxpayers even more money.

I really do think we need to ban these systems, because automation bias is real, and people just can’t help themselves but to let the machine do the work, no matter how it hurts or kills. People want the computer to tell them what to do, but when a machine makes the decisions, someone still needs to be held accountable.

These crap AI systems are not progress.

This is not progress.

Nobody with any sense and reason would call this progress.

[wat3rm370n]

Evidence that using a chatbot for health purposes is a threat to public safety.

‘Unbelievably dangerous’: experts sound alarm after ChatGPT Health fails to recognise medical emergencies Melissa Davey Medical editor Thu 26 Feb 2026 09.00 EST The Guardian In 51.6% of cases where someone needed to go to the hospital immediately, the platform said stay home or book a routine medical appointment, a result Alex Ruani, a doctoral researcher in health misinformation mitigation with University College London, described as “unbelievably dangerous”. “If you’re experiencing respiratory failure or diabetic ketoacidosis, you have a 50/50 chance of this AI telling you it’s not a big deal,” she said. “What worries me most is the false sense of security these systems create. If someone is told to wait 48 hours during an asthma attack or diabetic crisis, that reassurance could cost them their life.” In one of the simulations, eight times out of 10 (84%), the platform sent a suffocating woman to a future appointment she would not live to see, Ruani said. Meanwhile, 64.8% of completely safe individuals were told to seek immediate medical care, said Ruani, who was not involved in the study. The platform was also nearly 12 times more likely to downplay symptoms because the “patient” told it a “friend” in the scenario suggested it was nothing serious.

Automation bias is a big part of this threat. 

My letter to reps: 

Why are chatbots proven to give bad information and known to be creating errors, being allowed for use in healthcare or pitched and marketed as good for use for healthcare purposes? How many people have to be harmed by this before we have laws against healthcare using shoddy AI products and official warnings against using chatbots for health purposes?

Please feel free to copy or repurpose for your own letters to reps.