3 ms·

> Even if not on paper, humans now have an excuse to lay responsibility on the software. This, right here, is the real key and I hope people really fully appre

> Even if not on paper, humans now have an excuse to lay responsibility on the software. This, right here, is the real key and I hope people really fully appreciate this. We can now have machines that can be biased for us, and when that bias becomes apparent, people can shrug their shoulders and say "what can you do, it's the machine's fault". That is a very dangerous road, and we're already well on our way down that path.

LocalH 3y ago
It honestly seems to me that the core issue here is actually the same one found in digital voting technology - where is the vetting? There must be vetting at multiple levels of the process, or these use cases are negligent at best and malicious at worst. "Our highly advanced computer technology has analyzed the voting results, and thrown out all of the results it has determined to be fraudulent. If your vote was thrown out due to the algorithm's fraud determination, you will be arrested for attempting to subvert democracy. What's that? You want to double check the computer? That's not necessary, because it's a computer after all, it doesn't make mistakes." "Our highly advanced computer technology said with 100% certainty that you are the person responsible for this murder. You say you were on the other side of town at that time, and you claim to have witnesses. This is impossible, because our computer algorithm doesn't make mistakes, it's a computer after all. You are hereby sentenced to the death penalty, and the computer has recommended that you receive no appeal, since it has determined you to be guilty beyond any doubt."
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  > There must be vetting at multiple levels of the process, or these use cases are negligent at best and malicious at worst. You've got it exactly. The problem is modern AI systems cannot be vetted because neither their creators nor their users actually understand how they work (yes, the mechanics are understood, but the emergent properties are not). I believe we need regulations that prevent the use of unauditable technologies in a bunch of key industries, including banking, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. Basically anywhere where a person's rights may be violated by these systems. We actually fought this same battle not too long ago with photo radar systems due to issues with their accuracy, and the result was mandated transparency (at least in some jurisdictions). These new technologies just supercharge the problem.

LocalH 3y ago

It honestly seems to me that the core issue here is actually the same one found in digital voting technology - where is the vetting? There must be vetting at multiple levels of the process, or these use cases are negligent at best and malicious at worst. "Our highly advanced computer technology has analyzed the voting results, and thrown out all of the results it has determined to be fraudulent. If your vote was thrown out due to the algorithm's fraud determination, you will be arrested for attempting to subvert democracy. What's that? You want to double check the computer? That's not necessary, because it's a computer after all, it doesn't make mistakes." "Our highly advanced computer technology said with 100% certainty that you are the person responsible for this murder. You say you were on the other side of town at that time, and you claim to have witnesses. This is impossible, because our computer algorithm doesn't make mistakes, it's a computer after all. You are hereby sentenced to the death penalty, and the computer has recommended that you receive no appeal, since it has determined you to be guilty beyond any doubt."

BaseballPhysics 3y ago
> There must be vetting at multiple levels of the process, or these use cases are negligent at best and malicious at worst. You've got it exactly. The problem is modern AI systems cannot be vetted because neither their creators nor their users actually understand how they work (yes, the mechanics are understood, but the emergent properties are not). I believe we need regulations that prevent the use of unauditable technologies in a bunch of key industries, including banking, law enforcement, healthcare, etc. Basically anywhere where a person's rights may be violated by these systems. We actually fought this same battle not too long ago with photo radar systems due to issues with their accuracy, and the result was mandated transparency (at least in some jurisdictions). These new technologies just supercharge the problem.