3 ms·

Folks who specialize in issues arising from algorithmic bias, ethics, and techniques for gathering data and scraping, data lineage etc. are uniquely qualified t

by isodev 4y ago

Folks who specialize in issues arising from algorithmic bias, ethics, and techniques for gathering data and scraping, data lineage etc. are uniquely qualified to support the ethical perspective. This is not competition. Politicians/corporates/religious leaders/influencers and such want it to be a competition, so they can reinforce their base of power and influence. That's why we must develop tools to guard against such influences.

seydor 4y ago
I think that "specialized folks deciding our ethics" sounds authoritarian. I much prefer it to be public, competitive and democratic
- isodev 4y ago
  This seems naive and inviting exactly the kind of bias we need to avoid. For example, you say “democratic” which means different things to different groups of people. Transparency and trustability are precisely the tools that once installed can allow the public to peer into the workings of an AI system, it's models and training data. To achieve that, we need the cooperation of a wide variety of specialists in domains like ethics, computer science, law etc. Also, the right choices must be made while creating that AI system (e.g. in regard to data collection, diversity of the sample data etc).
  - seydor 4y ago
    > Transparency and trustability are precisely the tools I don't get the point of transparency if "we the people" dont have a say on the politics of AI that affects our life. AI is too important to be left to a cabal of "specialists"
    - notacoward 4y ago
      > AI is too important to be left to a cabal of "specialists" You do realize you're arguing against yourself, right? "Cabal of specialists" could also apply to the people who work on AI. For profit. Information asymmetry is well known to be the main cause of market failure. How is that cabal alone better than that plus people with other specialties such as ethics, plus everyone able to watch them all and decide for themselves whether that aligns with their own (or society's) interests?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
torstenvl 4y ago
They are not uniquely qualified and no such fields exist.

by isodev 4y ago

seydor 4y ago

I think that "specialized folks deciding our ethics" sounds authoritarian. I much prefer it to be public, competitive and democratic

isodev 4y ago
This seems naive and inviting exactly the kind of bias we need to avoid. For example, you say “democratic” which means different things to different groups of people. Transparency and trustability are precisely the tools that once installed can allow the public to peer into the workings of an AI system, it's models and training data. To achieve that, we need the cooperation of a wide variety of specialists in domains like ethics, computer science, law etc. Also, the right choices must be made while creating that AI system (e.g. in regard to data collection, diversity of the sample data etc).
- seydor 4y ago
  > Transparency and trustability are precisely the tools I don't get the point of transparency if "we the people" dont have a say on the politics of AI that affects our life. AI is too important to be left to a cabal of "specialists"
  - notacoward 4y ago
    > AI is too important to be left to a cabal of "specialists" You do realize you're arguing against yourself, right? "Cabal of specialists" could also apply to the people who work on AI. For profit. Information asymmetry is well known to be the main cause of market failure. How is that cabal alone better than that plus people with other specialties such as ethics, plus everyone able to watch them all and decide for themselves whether that aligns with their own (or society's) interests?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

torstenvl 4y ago

They are not uniquely qualified and no such fields exist.