6 ms·

I can appreciate the effort made in the research, but classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go. There

I can appreciate the effort made in the research, but classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go. There is behind machine learning both a phantasm - artificial intelligences that can guess what humans can't - and a reality - it's just statistical models that are never 100% accurate because, well, that's an attribute of statistics. Those two elements combined and applied to behavior classification sounds like a scary thing, not unlike the kind of errors eugenics made, over trusting their science to apply it on social facts, totally discarding empathy and individual context.

amelius 10y ago
> classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go Advertisers are already doing this on a massive scale.
- oelmekki 10y ago
  If they make an error, it's their own problem, so I'm fine with that. I'm more concerned about researching such models to decide policies or act upon as administratives. I don't think classifying suicidal behavior is something most advertisers are interested about :)
  - adrianN 10y ago
    The content you're presented with on the net is more and more controlled by algorithms. They provide you with stuff they think you'll like. This has an influence on your opinions. On a large enough scale this can very much influence policies and societal developments.
  - wu-ikkyu 10y ago
    >I don't think classifying suicidal behavior is something most advertisers are interested about :) Facebook has shown an interest in manipulating depressive states of it's users. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf
- danharaj 10y ago
  And I hate it
- thwee 10y ago
  Are you saying that the cost of doing this is low because of advertisers' experience? Or are you saying that it's ok because we already have a slightly less intrusive version of this in place?
golergka 10y ago
But humans already make those judgements, and when they make errors, it's tragic too. If a psychologist erroneously decides that you're a menace to yourself and should be institutionalized, would it make you feel better that it was a human that made this decision? Even if AI would make the same error with a much lower probability?
- oelmekki 10y ago
  This is a good point. I guess the difference here will be "how much do we trust human judgement?" and "how much do we trust AI predictions?". If AIs make 10% less errors than humans but we have 50% more trust in them, that's a problem. Eugenics were not a problem because science was wrong, but because people blindly trusted it to apply where it should not. There are a lot of things to consider, here, those are exciting times for thinking.
- kec 10y ago
  The concern isn't the lack of humanity, it's technology allowing for massive scale. The potential damage of a buggy machine learning classifier is much higher than that of an unskilled psychologist.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  I can't speak for OP, but that is one reason I want to end all involuntary treatments. Getting locked up in a psych facility is a nightmare to me. But you can at least sue a doctor and get his license revoked. It is much harder to sue an algorithm.
  - golergka 10y ago
    > I want to end all involuntary treatments Are you sure you have thought through all implications? I mean, getting locked up sounds pretty scary, but there are a lot of other scary stories that can happen if you really ban the whole concept of involuntary treatments.
BucketSort 10y ago
Meh, this is a bit alarmist. We've been using machines and statistics for classifying human behaviors from the get-go. It's one of the most important things in analytics, mainly because money comes from people.
- thwee 10y ago
  So you're saying we're used to it, now.
- jodrellblank 10y ago
  You're saying it's OK because it's profitable?
bertil 10y ago
If both treatment and non-treatment could have dramatic consequences, I would agree with you. Criminal justice is a classic case of that. In this case, such a tool can be used to flag behaviour automatically (Facebook does that, for instance) to start a process, i.e. have a conversation. “Depression” does not have hard-set limits, and caring about someone who had a bad day is not problematic, talking about how to deal with rejection is appropriate. Forcing them to take mind-altering substance is not ideal, but I can’t imagine any licensed doctor doing that just because some patient’s score is high, even if they do not qualify otherwise; they receive a decade of training to teach them nuance. As someone who lives with a psychiatrist, I can confirm: no one is skeptical of classification any more than the people doing the rating. Having measuring tools (imperfect as they may be initially) is what allows science to try opposable theories, and psychiatry needs this (and plenty more tools).
- thwee 10y ago
  But doctors getting massive amounts of training is exactly the kind of problem computer science seeks to solve with a machine learning approach. There aren't enough doctors around to monitor every patient, so machine learning takes over. Now doctors can exactly focus on a score, and say, hey we didn't even see this.
- thwee 10y ago
  > no one is skeptical of classification any more than the people doing the rating. And perhaps the people being rated.
webmaven 10y ago
> classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go. What do you think doing A/B testing on cohorts of users is?

amelius 10y ago

> classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go Advertisers are already doing this on a massive scale.

oelmekki 10y ago
If they make an error, it's their own problem, so I'm fine with that. I'm more concerned about researching such models to decide policies or act upon as administratives. I don't think classifying suicidal behavior is something most advertisers are interested about :)
- adrianN 10y ago
  The content you're presented with on the net is more and more controlled by algorithms. They provide you with stuff they think you'll like. This has an influence on your opinions. On a large enough scale this can very much influence policies and societal developments.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >I don't think classifying suicidal behavior is something most advertisers are interested about :) Facebook has shown an interest in manipulating depressive states of it's users. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf
danharaj 10y ago
And I hate it
thwee 10y ago
Are you saying that the cost of doing this is low because of advertisers' experience? Or are you saying that it's ok because we already have a slightly less intrusive version of this in place?

golergka 10y ago

But humans already make those judgements, and when they make errors, it's tragic too. If a psychologist erroneously decides that you're a menace to yourself and should be institutionalized, would it make you feel better that it was a human that made this decision? Even if AI would make the same error with a much lower probability?

oelmekki 10y ago
This is a good point. I guess the difference here will be "how much do we trust human judgement?" and "how much do we trust AI predictions?". If AIs make 10% less errors than humans but we have 50% more trust in them, that's a problem. Eugenics were not a problem because science was wrong, but because people blindly trusted it to apply where it should not. There are a lot of things to consider, here, those are exciting times for thinking.
kec 10y ago
The concern isn't the lack of humanity, it's technology allowing for massive scale. The potential damage of a buggy machine learning classifier is much higher than that of an unskilled psychologist.
tomjen3 10y ago
I can't speak for OP, but that is one reason I want to end all involuntary treatments. Getting locked up in a psych facility is a nightmare to me. But you can at least sue a doctor and get his license revoked. It is much harder to sue an algorithm.
- golergka 10y ago
  > I want to end all involuntary treatments Are you sure you have thought through all implications? I mean, getting locked up sounds pretty scary, but there are a lot of other scary stories that can happen if you really ban the whole concept of involuntary treatments.

BucketSort 10y ago

Meh, this is a bit alarmist. We've been using machines and statistics for classifying human behaviors from the get-go. It's one of the most important things in analytics, mainly because money comes from people.

thwee 10y ago
So you're saying we're used to it, now.
jodrellblank 10y ago
You're saying it's OK because it's profitable?

bertil 10y ago

If both treatment and non-treatment could have dramatic consequences, I would agree with you. Criminal justice is a classic case of that. In this case, such a tool can be used to flag behaviour automatically (Facebook does that, for instance) to start a process, i.e. have a conversation. “Depression” does not have hard-set limits, and caring about someone who had a bad day is not problematic, talking about how to deal with rejection is appropriate. Forcing them to take mind-altering substance is not ideal, but I can’t imagine any licensed doctor doing that just because some patient’s score is high, even if they do not qualify otherwise; they receive a decade of training to teach them nuance. As someone who lives with a psychiatrist, I can confirm: no one is skeptical of classification any more than the people doing the rating. Having measuring tools (imperfect as they may be initially) is what allows science to try opposable theories, and psychiatry needs this (and plenty more tools).

thwee 10y ago
But doctors getting massive amounts of training is exactly the kind of problem computer science seeks to solve with a machine learning approach. There aren't enough doctors around to monitor every patient, so machine learning takes over. Now doctors can exactly focus on a score, and say, hey we didn't even see this.
thwee 10y ago
> no one is skeptical of classification any more than the people doing the rating. And perhaps the people being rated.

webmaven 10y ago

> classifying possible human behaviors is exactly a field where I don't want machine learning to go. What do you think doing A/B testing on cohorts of users is?