3 ms·

> It's important that consumers learn this the hard way. When they start losing money, then the flaws of ML become obvious. But they may not be harmed in ways

> It's important that consumers learn this the hard way. When they start losing money, then the flaws of ML become obvious. But they may not be harmed in ways that don't involve monetary loss, or involve monetary loss that they can quantify and attribute. > Otherwise if we gatekeep the technology to "professionals", you end up with companies like McKinsey recommending it to governments and civil service and allowing black box ML to insidiously creep into the societal infrastructure. Honestly, if it's gate-kept, it should be limited to academics and researchers. It's orders of magnitude worse for some institutional process to be built on the "judgements" of an unreliable "AI" than for some consumer to be mislead about something.

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago
> But they may not be harmed in ways that don't involve monetary loss, or involve monetary loss that they can quantify and attribute. It is better that your average Joe wastes 500 dollars over a wrong airline ticket, than to waste 500 thousand in a lawsuit because a government bureaucracy placed too much faith in consultants and efficiency buzzwords. > Honestly, if it's gate-kept, it should be limited to academics and researchers. It's orders of magnitude worse for some institutional process to be built on the "judgements" of an unreliable "AI" than for some consumer to be mislead about something. Academics and researchers are not infallible. The current loss of trust in subject matter experts is precisely because they have been held up for too long as paragons of knowledge and judgement. People's lives and livelihoods are impacted when experts make a mistake or offer bad advice. Most of the top academics that are summoned by think tanks and consult for governments are all well tenured/insulated from the worst consequences of their decisions.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Academics and researchers are not infallible. The current loss of trust in subject matter experts is precisely because they have been held up for too long as paragons of knowledge and judgement. Yeah, I guess I could have put it better that it should be banned from production use by anyone, and academics and researchers should only be able to study and improve it.

KRAKRISMOTT 4y ago

> But they may not be harmed in ways that don't involve monetary loss, or involve monetary loss that they can quantify and attribute. It is better that your average Joe wastes 500 dollars over a wrong airline ticket, than to waste 500 thousand in a lawsuit because a government bureaucracy placed too much faith in consultants and efficiency buzzwords. > Honestly, if it's gate-kept, it should be limited to academics and researchers. It's orders of magnitude worse for some institutional process to be built on the "judgements" of an unreliable "AI" than for some consumer to be mislead about something. Academics and researchers are not infallible. The current loss of trust in subject matter experts is precisely because they have been held up for too long as paragons of knowledge and judgement. People's lives and livelihoods are impacted when experts make a mistake or offer bad advice. Most of the top academics that are summoned by think tanks and consult for governments are all well tenured/insulated from the worst consequences of their decisions.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Academics and researchers are not infallible. The current loss of trust in subject matter experts is precisely because they have been held up for too long as paragons of knowledge and judgement. Yeah, I guess I could have put it better that it should be banned from production use by anyone, and academics and researchers should only be able to study and improve it.