4 ms·
The problem with black boxes is that they beg parallel construction theories. I.e. "We don't approve loans to {ethnic majority} on purpose. We only use our mod
by ethbr0 4y ago
The problem with black boxes is that they beg parallel construction theories.
I.e. "We don't approve loans to {ethnic majority} on purpose. We only use our models, which only rely on historical data." -> No proof, no case, no problem
The point of any AI law should be to put the onus on the model executor to explain how their model doesn't violate existing law.
You can use any model you want, but you can't point to its unexplainability as a free pass for ignoring protected classes.
And if you can't explain its results? Well, then you're opening yourself up to lawsuits.
- warrenronsiek 4y agoSo ML systems are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent? Requiring the claimant have some evidence might not be a perfect legal regime, but the converse is a de-facto ban on innovation. Can a human _prove_ that their decisions are made without bias? No. Are we going to hold them to the same standard proposed here for an AI? Also no. In practice, rules like the one proposed here just enshrine legacy decision systems which are already understood to biased and ineffective. The most mysterious black box we have is the human brain.
- ethbr0 4y agoA fair point. What would you say of requiring training data and hyperparameter archiving for subsequent legal review?
- thrashh 4y agoCompanies can already do that without AI. Why would you legislate just AI and let some other company discriminate?
- ruszki 4y agoWhy do you think they would let?