5 ms·

THIS! Drop the "slightly"... I can't understand how people focus so much on the competition cheating, and so less on "wait, wtf are they doing here"... I mean,

by nnq 7y ago

THIS! Drop the "slightly"... I can't understand how people focus so much on the competition cheating, and so less on "wait, wtf are they doing here"... I mean, even if they are not deciding whether to euthanize or not based on this, you're still building a system that introduces "good looks" as a factor in a life-and-death decision regarding a living being. It's not hard to jump from this a system that would use your facebook file to grant or deny medical health coverage or a similar life-and-death thing. Shift the Overton-window a little, push is a few notches further, and you're re-inventing phrenology with deep learning... This is bone-chilling! I mean the fact that so many people overlook this...

RomanBob 7y ago
If some animals are going to be euthanised, would you rather you euthanise at random, or euthanise those who are likely not going to be adopted anyway. The problem here isn't AI, it's the problem of pet ownership. This problem has existed. And you are criticising an imperfect attempt at solving a part of this problem, because the solution isn't perfect. shake my head
lolc 7y ago
The euthanization is already there. Machine learning can't justify what economy requires. The only thing machine learning promises here (and you're free to doubt the effect) is to improve adoption rates and thus reduce euthanization. Of course this is highly problematic when applied to humans. But to be clear, some humans are already judged by models (transparent ones so far) in live and death decisions. That's how organ transplant decisions are taken. The candidates with the best prospects get the scarce organs. Similarily, when looking at populations, decisions that protect many are often taken in full knowledge of the danger to a few. Vaccination for example. Resource optimization problems mix badly with absolute morals.

by nnq 7y ago

RomanBob 7y ago

If some animals are going to be euthanised, would you rather you euthanise at random, or euthanise those who are likely not going to be adopted anyway. The problem here isn't AI, it's the problem of pet ownership. This problem has existed. And you are criticising an imperfect attempt at solving a part of this problem, because the solution isn't perfect. shake my head

lolc 7y ago

The euthanization is already there. Machine learning can't justify what economy requires. The only thing machine learning promises here (and you're free to doubt the effect) is to improve adoption rates and thus reduce euthanization. Of course this is highly problematic when applied to humans. But to be clear, some humans are already judged by models (transparent ones so far) in live and death decisions. That's how organ transplant decisions are taken. The candidates with the best prospects get the scarce organs. Similarily, when looking at populations, decisions that protect many are often taken in full knowledge of the danger to a few. Vaccination for example. Resource optimization problems mix badly with absolute morals.