4 ms·

And do you need an AI to guess your customer race or sexual preferences ? If is needed for the service (maybe you are a doctor)you just ask. If is illegal for y

And do you need an AI to guess your customer race or sexual preferences ? If is needed for the service (maybe you are a doctor)you just ask. If is illegal for you to ask and use someones race then it should not be legal for you to guess it and then use that guess in your algorithms.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
If it is illegal to collect and use that information then you don't need to additionally regulate algorithms specifically... And if it is legal to collect and use that information then it seems nonsensical to ban the use of algorithms specifically...
- troupo 3y ago
  Nope. That's not how it works. Even if it is legal to collect that information, it does not imply that it's legal (or desirable to begin with) to feed that information to a blackbox algorithm.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Hence I specifically wrote "use it"... The GDPR use "process it", which is generic enough to cover AI.
    - troupo 3y ago
      > The GDPR use "process it", which is generic enough to cover AI. Nope, it's not. Because, again, sending user data to a magic black box may be illegal. While processing it in other ways could be legal.
      - mytailorisrich 3y ago
        You are not replying to my comments. You are adding an additional constraint that wasn't in my initial comment. My point is that if collection and processing is regulated then that covers AI. And thus there is no "sending user data to a magic black box may be illegal" but my whole comment was that this wasn't needed. AI is just a tool, it's just automated processing. Btw, 'nope' passes off as rather dismissive and rude.
        troupo 3y ago
        > You are adding an additional constraint that wasn't in my initial comment. No. I'm showing that your conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. > My point is that if collection and processing is regulated then that covers AI. No. No it doesn't. > but my whole comment was that this wasn't needed. AI is just a tool, it's just automated processing. And that, too, isn't entirely true, precisely because AI is a tool, and a different one. We always adapt or pass new laws and regulations for new, significantly different, tools. For example, just because you can process data doesn't necessarily mean that you can process it in any way by any tools available to you. "GDPR allows you process data" does not immediately imply "this data can be processed by AIs". There is a reason why I was "adding additional constraints". Because these constraints are why additional laws and/or regulations around AI are needed. For example, one of the stipulations of the AI Act is [1]: "AI systems shall be developed and used in a way that allows appropriate traceability and explainability, while making humans aware that they communicate or interact with an AI system as well as duly informing users of the capabilities and limitations of that AI system and affected persons about their rights". The reason being stories like this: https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-warning-for-europe-over-risks-of-using-algorithms/ https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-wa... That stipulation alone isn't covered by any existing laws. There are bits and pieces here and there about various processes in various contexts, but this act brings them all together in one coherent form applicable to AI systems (which are appropriately broadly defined in the act [2]). Or, there's an entire Article 5 explicitly prohibiting the use of AI in sensitive and outright harmful areas. Including things like banning them for large-scale suveillance except in very narrow scopes. Note that, again, there's undoubtedly pieces of this scattered around various regulations, but this one makes them clear and make them specifically applicable to AIs. That's why I keep repeating: no, the fact that someone allows to collect and process data does not immediately imply that this collection and processing can be done with AIs. Where applicable, this law references existing ones. [1] Quoting from this excellent article https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac... [2] Annex I: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
- simion314 3y ago
  >And if it is legal to collect and use that information then it seems nonsensical to ban the use of algorithms specifically... And a HN entrepreneur will say that they do not collect the race, a neuron somewhere in the AI will turn on for a specific race but it is not their fault, the input data had no race the AI deduced it. The laws regulate high risk stuff, it will prevent that HN entrepreneur to sell medical AIs , crime predicting AIs, car driving AIs etc just because they put a disclaimer that the AI might be wrong.
  - mytailorisrich 3y ago
    Collect it, store it, use it. QED. That's why drafting of laws is so tricky and important. You need to find the right way to make a general principle apply without having to spell every single possible case, which is impossible. But on those things I am convinced that there is no need to single out AI if the law is drafted so as to spell put general principles. On the other hand, AI can bring major benefits and, while we should be careful, we should allow "tech entrepreneurs" to bring those benefits to society.
    - simion314 3y ago
      >On the other hand, AI can bring major benefits and, while we should be careful, we should allow "tech entrepreneurs" to bring those benefits to society. When I read about this last time , the limits were n place only for risky domains. So AI for coding will not be affected. Also the laws are not specific that the AI means neural networks, in my opinion from my experience tech is fulled with "fake it" people, with AI it is much easier for many more people to "fake it", so we can end up with this people selling crap to people and not taking responsibility for their actions. I seen someone was working on a therapist AI, if he sells it as a service do you think that a simple ToS that says"the AI might be wrong, I take no responsibility" is enough? It is similar like Tesla AI, they also do not want to claim any responability and push the fault to the customer.

mytailorisrich 3y ago

If it is illegal to collect and use that information then you don't need to additionally regulate algorithms specifically... And if it is legal to collect and use that information then it seems nonsensical to ban the use of algorithms specifically...

troupo 3y ago
Nope. That's not how it works. Even if it is legal to collect that information, it does not imply that it's legal (or desirable to begin with) to feed that information to a blackbox algorithm.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Hence I specifically wrote "use it"... The GDPR use "process it", which is generic enough to cover AI.
  - troupo 3y ago
    > The GDPR use "process it", which is generic enough to cover AI. Nope, it's not. Because, again, sending user data to a magic black box may be illegal. While processing it in other ways could be legal.
    - mytailorisrich 3y ago
      You are not replying to my comments. You are adding an additional constraint that wasn't in my initial comment. My point is that if collection and processing is regulated then that covers AI. And thus there is no "sending user data to a magic black box may be illegal" but my whole comment was that this wasn't needed. AI is just a tool, it's just automated processing. Btw, 'nope' passes off as rather dismissive and rude.
      - troupo 3y ago
        > You are adding an additional constraint that wasn't in my initial comment. No. I'm showing that your conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. > My point is that if collection and processing is regulated then that covers AI. No. No it doesn't. > but my whole comment was that this wasn't needed. AI is just a tool, it's just automated processing. And that, too, isn't entirely true, precisely because AI is a tool, and a different one. We always adapt or pass new laws and regulations for new, significantly different, tools. For example, just because you can process data doesn't necessarily mean that you can process it in any way by any tools available to you. "GDPR allows you process data" does not immediately imply "this data can be processed by AIs". There is a reason why I was "adding additional constraints". Because these constraints are why additional laws and/or regulations around AI are needed. For example, one of the stipulations of the AI Act is [1]: "AI systems shall be developed and used in a way that allows appropriate traceability and explainability, while making humans aware that they communicate or interact with an AI system as well as duly informing users of the capabilities and limitations of that AI system and affected persons about their rights". The reason being stories like this: https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-warning-for-europe-over-risks-of-using-algorithms/ https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-scandal-serves-as-a-wa... That stipulation alone isn't covered by any existing laws. There are bits and pieces here and there about various processes in various contexts, but this act brings them all together in one coherent form applicable to AI systems (which are appropriately broadly defined in the act [2]). Or, there's an entire Article 5 explicitly prohibiting the use of AI in sensitive and outright harmful areas. Including things like banning them for large-scale suveillance except in very narrow scopes. Note that, again, there's undoubtedly pieces of this scattered around various regulations, but this one makes them clear and make them specifically applicable to AIs. That's why I keep repeating: no, the fact that someone allows to collect and process data does not immediately imply that this collection and processing can be done with AIs. Where applicable, this law references existing ones. [1] Quoting from this excellent article https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-act/ https://softwarecrisis.dev/letters/the-truth-about-the-eu-ac... [2] Annex I: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52...
simion314 3y ago
>And if it is legal to collect and use that information then it seems nonsensical to ban the use of algorithms specifically... And a HN entrepreneur will say that they do not collect the race, a neuron somewhere in the AI will turn on for a specific race but it is not their fault, the input data had no race the AI deduced it. The laws regulate high risk stuff, it will prevent that HN entrepreneur to sell medical AIs , crime predicting AIs, car driving AIs etc just because they put a disclaimer that the AI might be wrong.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  Collect it, store it, use it. QED. That's why drafting of laws is so tricky and important. You need to find the right way to make a general principle apply without having to spell every single possible case, which is impossible. But on those things I am convinced that there is no need to single out AI if the law is drafted so as to spell put general principles. On the other hand, AI can bring major benefits and, while we should be careful, we should allow "tech entrepreneurs" to bring those benefits to society.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >On the other hand, AI can bring major benefits and, while we should be careful, we should allow "tech entrepreneurs" to bring those benefits to society. When I read about this last time , the limits were n place only for risky domains. So AI for coding will not be affected. Also the laws are not specific that the AI means neural networks, in my opinion from my experience tech is fulled with "fake it" people, with AI it is much easier for many more people to "fake it", so we can end up with this people selling crap to people and not taking responsibility for their actions. I seen someone was working on a therapist AI, if he sells it as a service do you think that a simple ToS that says"the AI might be wrong, I take no responsibility" is enough? It is similar like Tesla AI, they also do not want to claim any responability and push the fault to the customer.