6 ms·
For as long as it permits companies to hire fallible humans and to write machine learning models with false positive rates.
by afarrell 5y ago
For as long as it permits companies to hire fallible humans and to write machine learning models with false positive rates.
- nicoburns 5y agoThe machine learning models with false positives aren't the problem. The lack of a timely appeals process that involves a human is.
- jtbayly 5y agoBut that’s why the prices are so low. Society will put up with it as long as it works most of the time, because algorithms without humans are cheap.
- syshum 5y agostripe's prices / fees are not really that much lower, they do have great profit margins though
- nicoburns 5y agoI'm not sure about that. The companies employing these kind of techniques are typically making huge profits. I suspect supply and demand would dictate that a bunch of the cost came out of those
- naasking 5y agoI'm curious how many human reviews are triggered after ML flags a problem. If it's nearly 100%, why have the ML step at all?
- colinmhayes 5y agoBecause the algorithm only flags like less than 1% of users?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- naasking 5y agoMaybe I wasn't clear. I meant, why have the ML algorithm disable the account automatically if human review happens nearly 100% of the time, rather than simply have ML flag the account for human review, and let them decide whether to disable the account.