4 ms·
Your quote stops short of the much vaguer subsection (c): (c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by public authorities or on
by SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Your quote stops short of the much vaguer subsection (c):
(c) the placing on the market, putting into service or use of AI systems by public
authorities or on their behalf for the evaluation or classification of the
trustworthiness of natural persons over a certain period of time based on their
social behaviour or known or predicted personal or personality characteristics,
with the social score leading to either or both of the following:
(i) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole
groups thereof in social contexts which are unrelated to the contexts in
which the data was originally generated or collected;
(ii) detrimental or unfavourable treatment of certain natural persons or whole
groups thereof that is unjustified or disproportionate to their social
behaviour or its gravity;
Consider, for example, a supermarket chain that uses Bayesian inference to determine which products in which stores are theft-prone and need to be locked up. I think there's a strong argument to be made that violates (c)(ii).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- p_l 6y agoYour example wouldn't fall under, because the decision is not applied to humans, only to the products - i.e. there's no "credit scoring customers" and thus impacting their ability to buy those items, only decision on whether or not to have them in locked boxes.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoYeah, on further research I think you're right. I jumped the gun a little here.
- renewiltord 6y agoThe difference between the Marina Safeway and the Mission Safeway makes it clear this isn't a property of the products alone.
- p_l 6y agoThe point is applying it to people, with effects on the people themselves. Take for example shops that would decide whether you can be served based on face-matching AI. And it's property mainly of impoverishment of the area.
- renewiltord 6y agoPerhaps it's different in the EU but here in SF that is seen as systemic discrimination. But if it is different in the EU, then I won't judge.
- p_l 6y agoWell, it wouldn't fall under this specific proposed law. I'm not going to guarantee that it wouldn't fall against something else.
- renewiltord 6y agoI suppose the slippery slope was something I was concerned about but it doesn't matter.
- Jiro 6y agoNot on the level of an individual person, but on the level of groups of people. People in one neighborhood would have shops with locked boxes and people in another neighborhood would have shops with unlocked boxes. And those neighborhoods could very well have different ethnic compositions. In this case, you can still buy an item when the box is locked, but the same thing could lead to stores in some neighborhoods not carrying commonly stolen items at all.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- mfenniak 6y ago> by public authorities or on their behalf A supermarket chain is not a public authority. This prevents governments from creating systems to evaluate the trustworthiness of people, not private businesses.