3 ms·
> it will disadvantage people who are already disadvantaged. They are the least likely to be capable of defending themselves and the least likely to be heard if
by jstanley 3y ago
> it will disadvantage people who are already disadvantaged. They are the least likely to be capable of defending themselves and the least likely to be heard if they do try to defend themselves.
Can you come up with any type of system that this does not apply to?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5eMM3Wp3hbCuKKPE/proving-too-much https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/G5eMM3Wp3hbCuKKPE/proving-to...
- iinnPP 3y agoAny system designed to help disadvantaged people that has hit the mark. The point being made is that the idea of detecting AI text is absurd. It won't work it can't work. The point about it having an increased negative impact on those who are already at a disadvantage is important. Smart people don't need additional barriers to becoming benefits to society and promoting any tool that creates those barriers and does literally nothing else is terrible. And no, not all systems meet this criteria.
- bagacrap 3y agoI'm losing the train of thought here. Smart people are the ones least likely to be able to defend themselves? I think it's enough to say that it harms some people (ESL) more than others and leave it at that.
- lmm 3y ago> Any system designed to help disadvantaged people that has hit the mark. Are there any such systems? Don't all of them have the same problem of the very people who most need the system being the least capable of using it?