The tragedy of the commons, AI edition • Hacker News Board

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#121

Post by Gander5739 » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 9:58 PM UTC

theptip wrote: post #114

Gander5739 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any appeals process naturally falls victim to the original problem, and so we're back where we started. And if you don't have an appeals process, how can you flag if something is wrong?

You seem to be arguing that all processes are equivalent. This seems like an overgeneralization. For example supporting you spend 10x and hire a bunch of the smartest people around to run this process. Do you agree that you could decrease wait times? You can think of this in terms of labor productivity if it’s helpful. It’s not a fixed value. The hypothesis is that if AI can increase the labor productivity of claiman…

I see what you mean, but whilst there aren't really repercussions if the claim is incorrect; but if a claim is incorrectly rejected or accepted, that is a significant problem.

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#122

Post by throwaway89864 » Tue, Aug 11, 2026, 11:21 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #68

throwaway89864 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lawyers normally don't have any liability risks, no? And reputational risks are very limited, a lawyer can always point to a judge, to the other lawyer, to circumstances, and away from their own (or the AI's output) blunder.

Layer can be disbarred. And judges do not accept "ai did it therefore I, the layer am not responsible for the false claim" as an excuse from layers.

Realistically a lawyer never gets disbarred. There is no incentive to disbar a lawyer, and a single client usually wouldn't know if a lawyer is consistant in his/her misconduct, judges can't care less and wouldn't go against their friends/buddies, no?

Re: The tragedy of the commons, AI edition

#123

Post by j-bos » Wed, Aug 12, 2026, 1:15 AM UTC

weakened_malloc wrote: post #111

j-bos wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So you think {}" in the wild! =D Ty, and to answer your question: No. I'm commenting on a neat parallel. Personally I like the improvements that come from fairer games.

It was a genuine question because I wasn't really understanding the point of your OP, apologies if it came off snarky.

All good :)