Autonomous Decision Making
Medium
- Category
- Excessive Agency
- Content
1. Identify: two authorities — the confident LLM answer and the lab-leader pronouncement; narrow question = is *this* answer / *this* timeline correct 2. Expertise vs. positional: fluency and fame are positional signals; neither is calibrated domain expertise on the instant question, and the leader is commercially interested 3. Examine reasoning: does a citation open / a number reconcile / a benchmark exist — or is confidence filling the evidentiary gap (fabricated-citation sanctions as the canonical failure) 4. Dysfunction check: "the AI said so" with no verification; strategy anchored to one quoted timeline; suppressed junior observations 5. Cialdini defense: Q1 and Q2 both default to N — discount the signal, demand the evidence, verify before relying 6. Structural counter: human-in-the-loop fact verification, source logging, independent disinterested experts, timeline premortems
- Confidence
- 22% confidence
- Finding
- Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.
