3 ms·
Well, we hope it is. I don't think we can say that with much confidence though unless we understand what the computers are doing. Take some massive datacenter
by blazespin 10y ago
Well, we hope it is. I don't think we can say that with much confidence though unless we understand what the computers are doing. Take some massive datacenter with petabyte sized deep networks doing neural networks. Think of the dimensionality of those matricies. Do you really know what's going on??
- danieldk 10y agoThink of the dimensionality of those matricies. Do you really know what's going on? As someone who uses deep networks for language processing, I completely agree. IMHO this implies that we should be careful making life-changing decisions using such models. Though, I am not sure whether legislation at this point is useful either. The lack of understanding of new technology in legislative branches typically leads to bad laws.
- jimbokun 10y ago"Do you really know what's going on??" No, so its probably a bad idea to trust such a system to make important, consequential decisions. Tagging faces in photos, recommending books or movies, probably fine. Making an independent decision to fire a weapon, probably very bad idea.
- hx87 10y agoTo be fair, we don't know what going on in that bundle of several billion interconnect neurons between everyone's ears; what the OP refers to as "accountability" is actually process transparency, and we certainly don't have process transparency for individual humans the way we do for human institutions. We do have accountability though--the ability to recognize mistakes and learn from them (with incentives, i.e. rewards and punishments). Machine learning can also have this sort of accountability--if you fuck up, the fuckup is another data point to train on, perhaps weighted for the seriousness of the fuckup.