3 ms·

AI would allow us to form much more accurate etiologies than the current crop of sociologists, and better recommendations for solutions. There are simply no dow

by DaUR 10y ago

AI would allow us to form much more accurate etiologies than the current crop of sociologists, and better recommendations for solutions. There are simply no downsides to AI-journalism. The more you understand the present, the more accurately you can predict the future. Big data increases your knowledge of the present, allowing you to understand what-causes-what much more precisely.

vertex-four 10y ago
The issue is that you can't distill all the world's knowledge on a subject into something that can be read in an afternoon. Or rather, you can - so long as you choose to Trust In The Machine and ignore the details of how it got from there to the finished article. (I'm still entirely unconvinced that an AI could ever avoid bias, given that we're arguing over precisely what bias is in the first place.) That might work for Wal-mart deciding how much Kraft cheese to buy, but it shouldn't be acceptable for anything influencing public policy.
- DaUR 10y ago
  As opposed to trusting biased, rushed, financially-motivated humans of average human intelligence to distill the world's knowledge? Or biased, rushed, career-driven sociologists, that live under publish-or-perish and don't use the scientific method? Why the hell is it acceptable to have political activists and ideologues influence public policy? Again, that isn't the point. AI would be a step forward, and I'd gladly take journalists becoming unemployed if it causes a new AI-led era of Enlightenment. You're missing the vision: AI, with its swathes of data, would be able to tell you precisely what percentage of blacks that have been put in prison over drug laws would never have committed violent crimes. People's perception that these laws are justified for "public safety" would recede. That's just an example. You're arguing from a fundamentally obscurantist point of view, arguing that unless we know 100% of the facts, it's better to keep certain things quiet to prevent human bias, whereas you should be arguing that we'll never know 100% of the facts (obviously) and should just stop being so quick to judge. More facts are always better than less facts, period.
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    > As opposed to trusting biased, rushed, financially-motivated humans of average human intelligence to distill the world's knowledge? Or biased, rushed, career-driven sociologists, that live under publish-or-perish and don't use the scientific method? Why the hell is it acceptable to have political activists and ideologues influence public policy? Because we can discuss what bias these people have, and there is a "marketplace of ideas" so to speak. We're not asserting that there is one potential truth based on what a machine says.
    - DaUR 10y ago
      On the contrary, there is no marketplace of ideas. These people are so insular that they'll hang on to their dogma no matter what criticism is leveled against them. They're fundamentally wrong, not just misguided. Case in point, the IAT. > We're not asserting that there is one potential truth based on what a machine says. Strawman.
      - vertex-four 10y ago
        But that is what you're suggesting - that a machine is capable of deriving a singular unbiased truth of the world, and present it in a way that is proven not to further bias in any human reading it, and we should all accept that on the face of it.
        DaUR 10y ago
        > But that is what you're suggesting No, it isn't. I've said repeatedly they'd be much more accurate than humans, and much less biased than humans. You keep taking a black-and-white version of my arguments, arguing against that, and moving the goalposts. I'm not sure you're debating in good faith.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        The alternative is that you wind up with multiple AIs with different biases, people pick the ones that match their own biases, and we're not much better off. One presents stories about how drug users are unlikely to be convicted of violent crime, the other presents stories about how drug use leads to unsafe workplaces and road accidents. Both factually correct - like almost all news today - and both playing into people's biases and not solving the question of "do we legalise weed?" at all.

by DaUR 10y ago

vertex-four 10y ago

The issue is that you can't distill all the world's knowledge on a subject into something that can be read in an afternoon. Or rather, you can - so long as you choose to Trust In The Machine and ignore the details of how it got from there to the finished article. (I'm still entirely unconvinced that an AI could ever avoid bias, given that we're arguing over precisely what bias is in the first place.) That might work for Wal-mart deciding how much Kraft cheese to buy, but it shouldn't be acceptable for anything influencing public policy.

DaUR 10y ago
As opposed to trusting biased, rushed, financially-motivated humans of average human intelligence to distill the world's knowledge? Or biased, rushed, career-driven sociologists, that live under publish-or-perish and don't use the scientific method? Why the hell is it acceptable to have political activists and ideologues influence public policy? Again, that isn't the point. AI would be a step forward, and I'd gladly take journalists becoming unemployed if it causes a new AI-led era of Enlightenment. You're missing the vision: AI, with its swathes of data, would be able to tell you precisely what percentage of blacks that have been put in prison over drug laws would never have committed violent crimes. People's perception that these laws are justified for "public safety" would recede. That's just an example. You're arguing from a fundamentally obscurantist point of view, arguing that unless we know 100% of the facts, it's better to keep certain things quiet to prevent human bias, whereas you should be arguing that we'll never know 100% of the facts (obviously) and should just stop being so quick to judge. More facts are always better than less facts, period.
- vertex-four 10y ago
  > As opposed to trusting biased, rushed, financially-motivated humans of average human intelligence to distill the world's knowledge? Or biased, rushed, career-driven sociologists, that live under publish-or-perish and don't use the scientific method? Why the hell is it acceptable to have political activists and ideologues influence public policy? Because we can discuss what bias these people have, and there is a "marketplace of ideas" so to speak. We're not asserting that there is one potential truth based on what a machine says.
  - DaUR 10y ago
    On the contrary, there is no marketplace of ideas. These people are so insular that they'll hang on to their dogma no matter what criticism is leveled against them. They're fundamentally wrong, not just misguided. Case in point, the IAT. > We're not asserting that there is one potential truth based on what a machine says. Strawman.
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      But that is what you're suggesting - that a machine is capable of deriving a singular unbiased truth of the world, and present it in a way that is proven not to further bias in any human reading it, and we should all accept that on the face of it.
      - DaUR 10y ago
        > But that is what you're suggesting No, it isn't. I've said repeatedly they'd be much more accurate than humans, and much less biased than humans. You keep taking a black-and-white version of my arguments, arguing against that, and moving the goalposts. I'm not sure you're debating in good faith.
        vertex-four 10y ago
        The alternative is that you wind up with multiple AIs with different biases, people pick the ones that match their own biases, and we're not much better off. One presents stories about how drug users are unlikely to be convicted of violent crime, the other presents stories about how drug use leads to unsafe workplaces and road accidents. Both factually correct - like almost all news today - and both playing into people's biases and not solving the question of "do we legalise weed?" at all.