To be fair to our AI brethren, this is true of Humans too. I watch people game metrics every single day, and many of them fail spectacularly when presented with real world problems outside of their experience.

Gaming metrics is the very soul of corporate life

Then which is real and which illusion?

Good question. Sometimes, the metrics must be gamed to make real progress. (As opposed to the more usual gaming them for personal gain.)

Between these two, some self serving bias and delusion, mission statements etc.. what is real?!

If they meet the spec, they're not stupid solutions, it's a stupid spec.

The problem is that we generally rely on human intelligence to fill in gaps in specs that are really not stupid for a human. AI will exploit gaps that a human would basically say aren't there until they see evidence to the contrary.

So we can say that's a bad spec if we like, but what's the answer that leads to? I don't need an AI if I can just declare all users must be really good programmers spending their days writing unambiguous specs. That wasn't really the goal of the AI though.

Unfortunately, when gaming metrics has real world consequences (and this is of course the whole point of those metrics, assuming they're not gamed), then things like 2008 happens, and tens of thousands of people lose their homes.