5 ms·

We can start by not identifying this software as AI, and then work through what it can actually do with scientific rigor. Thinking we can boil emotion down to

We can start by not identifying this software as AI, and then work through what it can actually do with scientific rigor. Thinking we can boil emotion down to a well qualified set of states and rules is as reckless as it is presumptuous. "You like this" "Untrue" "Computer says otherwise" Think that through for a while. Each of us is the authority on our intent. We are the authority in who we are, what we feel, and so forth too. I won't have anything speaking for me or mine and neither should you.

giantg2 6y ago
"Each of us is the authority on our intent." Tell that to the courts.
- pc86 6y ago
  They agree. It's just that a) sometimes people lie about their intent; and, b) sometimes the courts have determined intent is not the most important thing, or even irrelevant.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    The judge is the authority. They can do whatever they want. Sometimes the listen to the person, sometimes not.
    - pc86 6y ago
      Sort of. They can't rule that intent is irrelevant if it's a necessary component of a given crime, for example. They have pretty wide latitude to run their courtroom how they wish, rule on admissibility of evidence, etc. but there are a decent number of things they're bound by. The problem is that some of these can only be fought on appeal which has a host of its own issues, including cost.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Yeah, but the stuff they are bound by can be violated by them misapplying the law. There's no real discipline or corrective action other than the appeal you mentioned, but even that doesn't ensure that it won't recur, or that similar mistakes won't happen at the next level. This happened recently as an example, there's a law that exempts dogs undergoing field training from being on a leash. There's no definition of field training in statute and the definition in the dictionary is very permissive (basically any action related to training a hunting/working dog). Under the principle of lenity, any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that we were just playing fetch, even though we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law. The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss, and even contradictory rulings about trial de novo issues. Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. They can violate rights, misapply law, and even yell at you or tell you they won't hear your side all with no consequences because they claim ignorance, so they're "just mistakes" that you can pay for an appeal to hopefully fix. There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.
        pc86 6y ago
        Ignoring the fact that obviously you've got a chip on your shoulder with regard to the judicial system, what the judge was doing makes total sense. They're trying to see if you were actually "field training" your dog or if you just wanted to play fetch. Expecting you to play fetch with a leashed dog is a whole other issue entirely. > we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law State laws vary but in mine, Game Wardens have identical powers to any other police officer. They have all the same arrest powers and have state-wide jurisdiction. Assuming it's the same in your state, and assuming you received some sort of citation or arrest that landed you in court in the first place, the judge at best has contradictory information from two equally relevant officers of the court. It's not exactly a slam dunk acquittal. > The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. The judge wasn't trying to determine whether you were following the law, this all goes to - as earlier in the thread - intent. If you just want to play fetch with your dog, you won't have any of this. But if you come loaded to bear with a bunch of training implements, treats, balls, whistles, etc., it's hard to argue that you're just playing fetch and not actually engaged in training. Any licensure or equipment would have supported your case. > There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case. > Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. Same in my state - they're elected, and mainly hear traffic infractions, zoning disputes, and very small summary offenses. Thankfully, you can appeal to Common Pleas from a magistrate court for something like $30. But I know some states it can be hundreds for an appeal. > They can violate rights, misapply law I mean, there are (again, in my state) censure and impeachment proceedings for magistrates, and while not super common they do happen often enough that it's not a huge scandal or anything. Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for. > even yell at you My goodness! > There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. Simply not true. > We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares. What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law.
- tertius 6y ago
  The courts can discover intent. It cannot determine it independently.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Which still makes them the authority...
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Lacking some direct statements and or evidence? Yeah. You've done that in the exchange above, not actually speaking directly to intent. The result, when that information is needed, is it will be obtained indirectly, and if it cannot be determined at all, some other decision will be made. Physically, in the way humans work, we are that authority. Should we undermine ourselves, yeah that's an issue. Conflating that state of affairs with what we require courts to do as some proof we do not own our intent isn't helpful.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        It's an absolute liability/immunity statute. Intent is not part of the elements of the offense.
        ddingus 6y ago
        See my other comments, it can definitely be part of the defense. Yours specifically.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Well then you better educate the judge and ADA because they believe intent doesn't matter and that the law makes it a per se violation.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Well, no. Remember I went looking for that material and did not find much.
derefr 6y ago
In 99% of use-cases with ML models like this, the output of the model won’t be the direct output of the system it’s used in. Instead, the output of the model will be fed through as an input to a correlational model/heuristic. I.e. Amazon doesn’t care what emotion you’re feeling. But it does potentially care whether you seem to be “in a buying mood” — e.g. it might be able to save a lot of money by constraining its ad placements to only be shown to such people. It isn’t going to try to figure out what mood “a buying mood” is — it’s just going to train another model to look at the mood-model output, together with people’s shopping histories, and then learn “people tend to buy things more often when the mood model has this output.” So it’s not like Amazon will ever assert that you’re in a particular mood. They’ll just assert that you look like someone who’s ready to buy things, with your mood being one input to that judgement. Their perception of your mood doesn’t have to be 100% accurate for that to be helpful; any more than a salesman’s read of your mood does.
- ddingus 6y ago
  ADS are not the worry I am expressing here. Other things, like tests to judge the nature or inclinations of someone are a much higher worry.

giantg2 6y ago

"Each of us is the authority on our intent." Tell that to the courts.

pc86 6y ago
They agree. It's just that a) sometimes people lie about their intent; and, b) sometimes the courts have determined intent is not the most important thing, or even irrelevant.
- giantg2 6y ago
  The judge is the authority. They can do whatever they want. Sometimes the listen to the person, sometimes not.
  - pc86 6y ago
    Sort of. They can't rule that intent is irrelevant if it's a necessary component of a given crime, for example. They have pretty wide latitude to run their courtroom how they wish, rule on admissibility of evidence, etc. but there are a decent number of things they're bound by. The problem is that some of these can only be fought on appeal which has a host of its own issues, including cost.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      Yeah, but the stuff they are bound by can be violated by them misapplying the law. There's no real discipline or corrective action other than the appeal you mentioned, but even that doesn't ensure that it won't recur, or that similar mistakes won't happen at the next level. This happened recently as an example, there's a law that exempts dogs undergoing field training from being on a leash. There's no definition of field training in statute and the definition in the dictionary is very permissive (basically any action related to training a hunting/working dog). Under the principle of lenity, any ambiguity is supposed to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. The judge ruled that we were just playing fetch, even though we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law. The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss, and even contradictory rulings about trial de novo issues. Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. They can violate rights, misapply law, and even yell at you or tell you they won't hear your side all with no consequences because they claim ignorance, so they're "just mistakes" that you can pay for an appeal to hopefully fix. There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares.
      - pc86 6y ago
        Ignoring the fact that obviously you've got a chip on your shoulder with regard to the judicial system, what the judge was doing makes total sense. They're trying to see if you were actually "field training" your dog or if you just wanted to play fetch. Expecting you to play fetch with a leashed dog is a whole other issue entirely. > we had a letter from a game warden saying the activities would be acceptable under the law State laws vary but in mine, Game Wardens have identical powers to any other police officer. They have all the same arrest powers and have state-wide jurisdiction. Assuming it's the same in your state, and assuming you received some sort of citation or arrest that landed you in court in the first place, the judge at best has contradictory information from two equally relevant officers of the court. It's not exactly a slam dunk acquittal. > The judge also misapplied facts that had nothing to do with the law, such as if we have a license or training on how to train dogs, yet there is no state license nor does the law mention any requirement to be trained (it's customary to self-train). And saying that we didn't have any special equipment with us, which again is nowhere in the law and isn't required. The judge wasn't trying to determine whether you were following the law, this all goes to - as earlier in the thread - intent. If you just want to play fetch with your dog, you won't have any of this. But if you come loaded to bear with a bunch of training implements, treats, balls, whistles, etc., it's hard to argue that you're just playing fetch and not actually engaged in training. Any licensure or equipment would have supported your case. > There were other issues and misapplication of law related to rights violations, a motion to dismiss Almost everyone who has ever appeared in front of a court has claimed their rights were violated to the point where it's practically a meme. It's almost never the case. > Also, at the lowest level the magistrates aren't even required to be lawyers. Same in my state - they're elected, and mainly hear traffic infractions, zoning disputes, and very small summary offenses. Thankfully, you can appeal to Common Pleas from a magistrate court for something like $30. But I know some states it can be hundreds for an appeal. > They can violate rights, misapply law I mean, there are (again, in my state) censure and impeachment proceedings for magistrates, and while not super common they do happen often enough that it's not a huge scandal or anything. Misapplication of law is exactly what the appeals process is for. > even yell at you My goodness! > There's zero accountability for the police, DA's office, and the courts. Simply not true. > We witnessed multiple rights violations, documented lies, and gross misapplication of law, but nobody cares. What's more likely? 1. Every police officer, attorney, and court house, as well as every politician and all the media, doesn't care about widespread systemic violations of basic rights, documented wrongdoing, and misapplication of the law. 2. You're misinformed about the law.
tertius 6y ago
The courts can discover intent. It cannot determine it independently.
- giantg2 6y ago
  Which still makes them the authority...
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Lacking some direct statements and or evidence? Yeah. You've done that in the exchange above, not actually speaking directly to intent. The result, when that information is needed, is it will be obtained indirectly, and if it cannot be determined at all, some other decision will be made. Physically, in the way humans work, we are that authority. Should we undermine ourselves, yeah that's an issue. Conflating that state of affairs with what we require courts to do as some proof we do not own our intent isn't helpful.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It's an absolute liability/immunity statute. Intent is not part of the elements of the offense.
      - ddingus 6y ago
        See my other comments, it can definitely be part of the defense. Yours specifically.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Well then you better educate the judge and ADA because they believe intent doesn't matter and that the law makes it a per se violation.
        ddingus 6y ago
        Well, no. Remember I went looking for that material and did not find much.

derefr 6y ago

In 99% of use-cases with ML models like this, the output of the model won’t be the direct output of the system it’s used in. Instead, the output of the model will be fed through as an input to a correlational model/heuristic. I.e. Amazon doesn’t care what emotion you’re feeling. But it does potentially care whether you seem to be “in a buying mood” — e.g. it might be able to save a lot of money by constraining its ad placements to only be shown to such people. It isn’t going to try to figure out what mood “a buying mood” is — it’s just going to train another model to look at the mood-model output, together with people’s shopping histories, and then learn “people tend to buy things more often when the mood model has this output.” So it’s not like Amazon will ever assert that you’re in a particular mood. They’ll just assert that you look like someone who’s ready to buy things, with your mood being one input to that judgement. Their perception of your mood doesn’t have to be 100% accurate for that to be helpful; any more than a salesman’s read of your mood does.

ddingus 6y ago
ADS are not the worry I am expressing here. Other things, like tests to judge the nature or inclinations of someone are a much higher worry.