4 ms·

Why do you trust moody, inconsistent people with their own biases as your leaders in life-or-death situations then?

by bitL 8y ago

lawlessone 8y ago
I'm not saying all AI is bad, but in the case of NN, they're full of biases known and unknown.
- mdorazio 8y ago
  > they're full of biases known and unknown Are we talking about AI or people?
  - gbrown 8y ago
    Depending on where the training data comes from, both ;)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
claydavisss 8y ago
People can be fined or jailed
- adrianN 8y ago
  And software can be deleted.
  - lawlessone 8y ago
    >And software can be deleted. The software doesn't care and isn't intimidated by that fact... yet.
- wpietri 8y ago
  That's an important point. One of the depressing features of the 2008 financial crisis was the great number of industry titans who went smoothly from "My awesome insight is worth tens or hundreds of millions annually" to "Who could possibly have known?" I would hate to see the same thing happen again when algorithms fail to work as hoped. If people build and deploy a system, they should be socially and legally responsible for its effects in the world. And executives should be held responsible by the rest of us. I'd like us to be done with the shrug-emoji-and-cash-the-bonus-check school of corporate governance.
jerf 8y ago
We have centuries/millennia/choose-a-time-frame of experience with what they do, how they tend to perform, and while it's not necessarily perfect, we know how to engineer around their limitations, again, with centuries/millennia/etc. of experience in that field. Computer models are much younger, and we know they tend to have weird pathological corners, but unlike humans and their weird pathological corners, we have a much less firm grasp on what they are. In many cases, humans have skin in the game, too. No computer model is yet sophisticated enough to be able to say that about. There is also some irrationality in having someone to blame, etc. Certainly. But it's not the only part of the story.
- samstave 8y ago
  Your comment made me think of something, perhaps in the larger assessment of the soundness/comfort-level we will/do have with AI decision making: With the moody, inconsistent people, we can understand and evaluate their incentive reasoning - positive or negative and empathize with that understanding to assign a level of trust. With any AI - especially to ones who didnt design/create it - any and all of its motivations, incentives are completely (emotionally) opaque to the recipient of the outcomes of its behavior. I know we are saying the same thing - but unless a "receipt" can be given for a decision to why an AI / NN made a decision, people will not learn to build an understanding of a trust. Otherwise, AI will always be hated by the humans who feel slighted by the cold decisions of a machine against them. And that is clearly going to be the real future. There will be anti-AI terrorism/activism and violence against systems, companies and countries that make life-bending decisions by AI against groups of people. The seed to this future is the gatekeeping to capital/resources through FICO-like systems.
  - cr0sh 8y ago
    > There will be anti-AI terrorism/activism and violence There's already been bomb attacks in Mexico against nanotechnology researchers, so it's not a big leap from there to AI/ML and other similar research (especially into GAI).
- wpietri 8y ago
  Absolutely. We all daily get practice in understanding humans, so I think humans are much better prepared to handle a rogue employee than a rogue model.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Like 'jerf says, we have many centuries of experience in dealing with people and people-based systems. We know the biases, the cognitive problems, the buttons to press and the buttons to absolutely avoid pressing. More importantly, humans share the same brain architecture and work roughly the same way - you and me included. This makes it easier for us to understand other people (also having a part of the brain trying to directly model other people's minds helps). The way those NN-based black boxes work is completely alien to us (and each being a special snowflake made of hacks does not help).

Why do you trust moody, inconsistent people with their own biases as your leaders in life-or-death situations then?

by bitL 8y ago

Why do you trust moody, inconsistent people with their own biases as your leaders in life-or-death situations then?

lawlessone 8y ago

I'm not saying all AI is bad, but in the case of NN, they're full of biases known and unknown.

mdorazio 8y ago
> they're full of biases known and unknown Are we talking about AI or people?
- gbrown 8y ago
  Depending on where the training data comes from, both ;)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

claydavisss 8y ago

People can be fined or jailed

adrianN 8y ago
And software can be deleted.
- lawlessone 8y ago
  >And software can be deleted. The software doesn't care and isn't intimidated by that fact... yet.
wpietri 8y ago
That's an important point. One of the depressing features of the 2008 financial crisis was the great number of industry titans who went smoothly from "My awesome insight is worth tens or hundreds of millions annually" to "Who could possibly have known?" I would hate to see the same thing happen again when algorithms fail to work as hoped. If people build and deploy a system, they should be socially and legally responsible for its effects in the world. And executives should be held responsible by the rest of us. I'd like us to be done with the shrug-emoji-and-cash-the-bonus-check school of corporate governance.

jerf 8y ago

We have centuries/millennia/choose-a-time-frame of experience with what they do, how they tend to perform, and while it's not necessarily perfect, we know how to engineer around their limitations, again, with centuries/millennia/etc. of experience in that field. Computer models are much younger, and we know they tend to have weird pathological corners, but unlike humans and their weird pathological corners, we have a much less firm grasp on what they are. In many cases, humans have skin in the game, too. No computer model is yet sophisticated enough to be able to say that about. There is also some irrationality in having someone to blame, etc. Certainly. But it's not the only part of the story.

samstave 8y ago
Your comment made me think of something, perhaps in the larger assessment of the soundness/comfort-level we will/do have with AI decision making: With the moody, inconsistent people, we can understand and evaluate their incentive reasoning - positive or negative and empathize with that understanding to assign a level of trust. With any AI - especially to ones who didnt design/create it - any and all of its motivations, incentives are completely (emotionally) opaque to the recipient of the outcomes of its behavior. I know we are saying the same thing - but unless a "receipt" can be given for a decision to why an AI / NN made a decision, people will not learn to build an understanding of a trust. Otherwise, AI will always be hated by the humans who feel slighted by the cold decisions of a machine against them. And that is clearly going to be the real future. There will be anti-AI terrorism/activism and violence against systems, companies and countries that make life-bending decisions by AI against groups of people. The seed to this future is the gatekeeping to capital/resources through FICO-like systems.
- cr0sh 8y ago
  > There will be anti-AI terrorism/activism and violence There's already been bomb attacks in Mexico against nanotechnology researchers, so it's not a big leap from there to AI/ML and other similar research (especially into GAI).
wpietri 8y ago
Absolutely. We all daily get practice in understanding humans, so I think humans are much better prepared to handle a rogue employee than a rogue model.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Like 'jerf says, we have many centuries of experience in dealing with people and people-based systems. We know the biases, the cognitive problems, the buttons to press and the buttons to absolutely avoid pressing. More importantly, humans share the same brain architecture and work roughly the same way - you and me included. This makes it easier for us to understand other people (also having a part of the brain trying to directly model other people's minds helps). The way those NN-based black boxes work is completely alien to us (and each being a special snowflake made of hacks does not help).