3 ms·
Fine, can be held accountable. Seriously, are you intentionally trying to miss the point in order to nitpick on this minor detail?
by BaseballPhysics 3y ago
Fine, can be held accountable. Seriously, are you intentionally trying to miss the point in order to nitpick on this minor detail?
- whatshisface 3y agoEngineers can be held accountable for a failure in a system they said would work, and it happens when something goes wrong with a bridge or building. I do not agree with the point. It is like saying, "A condominium in Florida cannot be held accountable." :-)
- BaseballPhysics 3y agoYou are entirely missing the point. We're talking about systems, algorithms, black box models that we don't understand or have the ability to reason about, that are being used to make decisions for us. Those systems are already proven to have embedded biases. But now instead of a human we can question, we only have inscrutable machines that no one, not even the people who built them, understand. If condominiums in Florida were making the decision about who could get a mortgage and live in them, then your analogy would make sense. But they don't. There are, on the other hand, computer systems that absolutely do, and it's very possible (I would predict probable) that they will end up effectively re-creating redlining. Furthermore, going back to your broken analogy, unlike the case with building codes and engineering professional organizations, there are no laws or regulations that could be used to hold accountable those who build or use those systems.
- _8j50 3y agoYou can inspect the design of a condo but ML models can't be examined, their training data is the only thing you can examine. It's like being able to inspect the raw materials but nothing else for the condo.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]