3 ms·

> EFF’s interest in AI progress is primarily from a policy perspective. We want to know what types of AI we need to start engaging with on legal, political, and

> EFF’s interest in AI progress is primarily from a policy perspective. We want to know what types of AI we need to start engaging with on legal, political, and technical safety fronts. Beyond that, we’re also just excited to see how many things computers are learning to do over time. > Given that machine learning tools and AI techniques are increasingly part of our everyday lives, it is critical that journalists, policy makers, and technology users understand the state of the field. When improperly designed or deployed, machine learning methods can violate privacy, threaten safety, and perpetuate inequality and injustice. Stakeholders must be able to anticipate such risks and policy questions before they arise, rather than playing catch-up with the technology. To this end, it’s part of the responsibility of researchers, engineers, and developers in the field to help make information about their life-changing research widely available and understandable. We hope you’ll join us.

comboy 9y ago
Yes, it's not that I didn't read the page. But even in case of corporations, it's not really possible to gauge what t's available to them, because they don't share everything. Well on the other hand whatever is available publicly, they have at least that. So maybe the whole research does make some sense in this context.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  Perhaps forcing governments and corporations to share more will be explored if it seems that this publicly documented baseline is far from the state of the art. Impossible to gauge, perhaps, but even realizing that highlights the risk of public ignorance.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    A question mark is more valuable than simply reporting nothing. And I think as the Samsung / Intel / semiconductor fab article (about birth defects and cancer caused by chemical exposure) the other day noted, traditional lawmaking is ill-equiped to deal with fast-moving technical fields. The first step is public awareness.

comboy 9y ago

Yes, it's not that I didn't read the page. But even in case of corporations, it's not really possible to gauge what t's available to them, because they don't share everything. Well on the other hand whatever is available publicly, they have at least that. So maybe the whole research does make some sense in this context.

mlinksva 9y ago
Perhaps forcing governments and corporations to share more will be explored if it seems that this publicly documented baseline is far from the state of the art. Impossible to gauge, perhaps, but even realizing that highlights the risk of public ignorance.
- ethbro 9y ago
  A question mark is more valuable than simply reporting nothing. And I think as the Samsung / Intel / semiconductor fab article (about birth defects and cancer caused by chemical exposure) the other day noted, traditional lawmaking is ill-equiped to deal with fast-moving technical fields. The first step is public awareness.