4 ms·

No. This is an absurd victim roleplay. People’s rights to control what happens to their information is not going to make machine learning illegal. It’ll just gi

No. This is an absurd victim roleplay. People’s rights to control what happens to their information is not going to make machine learning illegal. It’ll just give all users a little more privacy and make selling their data a little less lucrative. Besides, there’s been plenty of work into improving interpretibility. Stop pushing the myth that we don’t understand anything about neural networks and they’re the biggest, blackest box since Schwarzschild.

gnud 9y ago
GDPR might make certain uses of machine learning more difficult. A hypothetical insurance company that uses ML to decide who gets offered which rate, might run into trouble when a customer asked for "meaningful information" about the logic behind the decision. But for the same insurance company, using ML to flag possible fraud cases, and then having a human review them, seems not to pose a problem. All decisions were made by humans, the machines just showed where a decision was needed. Of course, IANAL.
- disgruntledphd2 9y ago
  Insurance companies are already prevented by law from using methods which cannot be explained, so they will be fine. I actually think that most ML will be fine, as the outcomes are trivial. The particular set of results that Google shows you on Google.com are not a decision about you, and I can't see those needing to be interpreted. Anything more consequential (i.e. job hiring) probably will, but also has laws that prevent the use of indiscriminate data already. So, I don't see this an issue.
  - maksimum 9y ago
    > The particular set of results that Google shows you on Google.com are not a decision about you I think that's easily demonstrated as not true: when I search for something like `luigi` in a regular window, I get the github link 1st. When I search for it in an anonymous window the github link is 3rd. Try it for yourself with a technical term that also has a common non-technical meaning. I believe that search personalization is useful, but it may be a privacy issue.
    - disgruntledphd2 9y ago
      See I get you, but I disagree. My example is python, whereby biologists and such-like people get snakes, people hanging out here get the programming language and so on. I personally believe (with no evidence) that the number of potential SERPs is much lower than the number of users, as I reckon they use some kind of dimension reduction technique and pick vectors of results "close" to yours. But I completely accept that I could be entirely wrong on this (i still think such a decision isn't consequential enough to trigger any GDPR provisions, but again I could also be wrong on that :) )
  - gnud 9y ago
    The insurance example was just the first thing I could think of. Replace with phone company, utilities company, what have you.
- bitL 9y ago
  Would publishing a deep learning model on GitHub satisfy that requirement? You want to know how it makes decisions? Here you go!

gnud 9y ago

GDPR might make certain uses of machine learning more difficult. A hypothetical insurance company that uses ML to decide who gets offered which rate, might run into trouble when a customer asked for "meaningful information" about the logic behind the decision. But for the same insurance company, using ML to flag possible fraud cases, and then having a human review them, seems not to pose a problem. All decisions were made by humans, the machines just showed where a decision was needed. Of course, IANAL.

disgruntledphd2 9y ago
Insurance companies are already prevented by law from using methods which cannot be explained, so they will be fine. I actually think that most ML will be fine, as the outcomes are trivial. The particular set of results that Google shows you on Google.com are not a decision about you, and I can't see those needing to be interpreted. Anything more consequential (i.e. job hiring) probably will, but also has laws that prevent the use of indiscriminate data already. So, I don't see this an issue.
- maksimum 9y ago
  > The particular set of results that Google shows you on Google.com are not a decision about you I think that's easily demonstrated as not true: when I search for something like `luigi` in a regular window, I get the github link 1st. When I search for it in an anonymous window the github link is 3rd. Try it for yourself with a technical term that also has a common non-technical meaning. I believe that search personalization is useful, but it may be a privacy issue.
  - disgruntledphd2 9y ago
    See I get you, but I disagree. My example is python, whereby biologists and such-like people get snakes, people hanging out here get the programming language and so on. I personally believe (with no evidence) that the number of potential SERPs is much lower than the number of users, as I reckon they use some kind of dimension reduction technique and pick vectors of results "close" to yours. But I completely accept that I could be entirely wrong on this (i still think such a decision isn't consequential enough to trigger any GDPR provisions, but again I could also be wrong on that :) )
- gnud 9y ago
  The insurance example was just the first thing I could think of. Replace with phone company, utilities company, what have you.
bitL 9y ago
Would publishing a deep learning model on GitHub satisfy that requirement? You want to know how it makes decisions? Here you go!