2 ms·
For welfare ? Good. It'd be hard to fuck it up as badly as humans have. And God forbid, AIs will do whatever improves outcomes. Humans employed in welfare, ev
by candiodari 8y ago
For welfare ? Good.
It'd be hard to fuck it up as badly as humans have. And God forbid, AIs will do whatever improves outcomes.
Humans employed in welfare, even in the police have been known to relish in the power the law gives them, as it does in many cases, and use it not even for personal empowerment, but for showing off to girls, for taking petty revenge, and worse.
- bobthepanda 8y agoThey're not talking about using AI to allocate welfare, they're talking about basic income. Using AI to allocate things is dangerous IMO, mostly because AI will use past decision-making as training data, and the training data was created by those power-mad human administrators with all their implicit and explicit biases.
- candiodari 8y agoSo it'll start as bad as humans, and improve. It's got my vote.
- bobthepanda 8y agoImprove, or get stuck in a local maximum and make the situation worse permanently. At least with human decision making, there is a paper trail and a means of legal recourse. AI provides neither.
- candiodari 8y agoEuhm just the opposite. Human paper trails, especially by government employees .. I've found them lacking or outright stupid/useless/falsified. That makes legal recourse dubious. With AI decisions paper trails will be perfect and it won't have any emotions, before or after getting sued, about the matter.