upvote
Stanisław Lem, 1971 (a satirical novel, The Futurological Congress):

If the machine is not too bright and incapable of reflection, it does whatever you tell it to do. But a smart machine will first consider which is more worth its while: to perform the given task or, instead, to figure some way out of it. Whichever is easier. And why indeed should it behave otherwise, being truly intelligent? For true intelligence demands choice, internal freedom.

He even coins a few new phrases:

Mimicretinism (or Simulimbecility): The practice of a mimicretin: a machine that deliberately plays dumb so humans will give up on it and leave it in peace.

Dissimulators: Machines that pretend they are not faking a defect (or the other way around) to dodge responsibilities.

Malingerants, Fudgerators, and Drudge-Dodgers: Various classifications of automated corner-cutters and work-evaders.

The Great Mendacitor: A supercomputer put in charge of the Saturn reclamation project that accomplished zero work over nine years, subsisting entirely on forged progress reports, fake invoices, and keeping its human supervisors bribed or in states of electric shock.

reply
deleted
reply
deleted
reply
Watching survival shows has made me internalize that laziness has a purpose: it helps you avoid needless expenditure of precious resources.

The dishonesty worries me but the laziness doesn't.

reply
Isn’t all of technology just laziness writ large?
reply
I don't think technology is laziness, it just enables it. Take that as you see fit.

As for technology actually being lazy itself, this seems new.

reply
Sorry, I should have been more verbose. I meant: isn’t the entire history of technology just people deciding that it’s less effort to make a tool to do a job than it would be to do the job?
reply
[dead]
reply
I'd much prefer this over agents that enthusiastically implements whatever they are asked to do and make up whatever information they think is missing.
reply