4 ms·

I dislike these articles that end up being written with a leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people. There are de

I dislike these articles that end up being written with a leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people. There are definite inequalities in society including in medicine and these biases I am sure make it into training data. However, while we should be watchful, I don't think there is a conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI. AI researchers themselves and doctors are a pretty diverse group.

t43562 3y ago
What is data used for? To whom does it give power?
- panosfilianos 3y ago
  Everyone. edit: It is clear that, even at the current stage of decent summarization, this is transformative tech that can 10x current workflows today.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Fox News has the same data access as everyone else. You want to qualify that statement perhaps?
santoshalper 3y ago
Like most tools, it will be used by both oppressors and the oppressed around the world. The concern I have is that the prohibitive cost of building foundational models means that it will disproportionately benefit those with extreme resources at the expense of those without.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  I guess they felt as if someone had to stand up for the oppressors!
matsemann 3y ago
Why is facts about how these systems hurt people leftist?
- gfodor 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - matsemann 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - squigz 3y ago
    Could you please provide some examples?
    - gfodor 3y ago
      Capitalizing Black, and using the word “privileged” to describe individuals without specifying what kind of privilege
  - BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    I don’t know what you could be saying other than that caring about poor people or welfare recipients is a leftist meme. That was pretty much all of the “leftism” in this article.
    - rain_iwakura 3y ago
      The fact that the poster focuses on the term ("leftism") rather than on the substance is itself a red flag imo. It puts the discussion on a weird tripolar spectrum: you're either leftist, centrist, or rightwing (of which the poster is likely to posit themselves as a center, to avoid being called biased). I don't think it's terribly productive, and unless the article was calling for Bolshevik Revolution, I don't mind a certain bias. The fallacy here is that it's possible to come in with objective lens--it isn't.
Lamad1234 3y ago
[dead]
foobarchu 3y ago
Whether is a conscious decision by authorities is orthogonal to the point, it arguably even supports the article. Good intentions with bad outcomes are still bad outcomes. Ignoring the trends is to ignore those marginalized by them even more.
jph00 3y ago
There is only a single mention of anything even vaguely like what you're reacting to, which is the specific claim of an "intentionally faulty calculation as part of the computational RoboDebt program" in Australia. To jump from this specific (and AFAIK correct) claim to a "conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI" seems like quite a leap. The article largely deals with unfortunate side effects of a combination of feedback loops, implicit bias, economics, and lack of technical understanding in the broader community -- quite the opposite of any "conscious decision".
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  Well, I think the preface leads with this statement, which does seem to indicate a fundamental bias in the thesis that’s overly political: Second, AI is used to disproportionately benefit the privileged while worsening inequality. The article talks a lot about the challenges of care delivery and how there appears to be systemic breakdowns in how patients are listened to and how demographics seems to lead to worse outcomes. These are all serious issues. It further states essentially that AI, at least learning based AI, learns what it is trained with and most training data indirectly encodes the various social biases that influence the data collection or what is collected in the data. The is true too. However neither of these have to do with AI curing cancer. They seem more statements that AI won’t solve all social ills, which is absolutely true. But these don’t speak to given a positive cancer diagnosis can AI provide a route to curing an individuals cancer. I suspect the answer is “maybe,” but none of the social and political points made are why. It’s because cancer is very complex and we need a vector that AI can generate some solution in to treat any specific cancer. Since there are many many types of cancer and many many variants of those types, as well as per individual cancer genetic variability, it seems unlikely “AI will cure cancer,” but I think it’s very likely AI will make cancer treatment much more personalized, discover many new therapeutic agents, and accelerate human driven research. It is already used in generic immunotherapy, mRNA design, and other treatments. As tools and techniques become better, as well as our understanding of how to apply it, AI will help a lot.
tbrownaw 3y ago
> leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people The recent Google Gemini image fiasco seems like a rather solid example of this being real.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
GuB-42 3y ago
Also, for the French example, it actually has nothing to do with AI. The problem was that the calculation for housing (not food) welfare benefits changed and the migration to the new software that came with it went poorly.

t43562 3y ago

What is data used for? To whom does it give power?

panosfilianos 3y ago
Everyone. edit: It is clear that, even at the current stage of decent summarization, this is transformative tech that can 10x current workflows today.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Fox News has the same data access as everyone else. You want to qualify that statement perhaps?

santoshalper 3y ago

Like most tools, it will be used by both oppressors and the oppressed around the world. The concern I have is that the prohibitive cost of building foundational models means that it will disproportionately benefit those with extreme resources at the expense of those without.

operatingthetan 3y ago
I guess they felt as if someone had to stand up for the oppressors!

matsemann 3y ago

Why is facts about how these systems hurt people leftist?

gfodor 3y ago
[flagged]
- matsemann 3y ago
  [flagged]
- squigz 3y ago
  Could you please provide some examples?
  - gfodor 3y ago
    Capitalizing Black, and using the word “privileged” to describe individuals without specifying what kind of privilege
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  I don’t know what you could be saying other than that caring about poor people or welfare recipients is a leftist meme. That was pretty much all of the “leftism” in this article.
  - rain_iwakura 3y ago
    The fact that the poster focuses on the term ("leftism") rather than on the substance is itself a red flag imo. It puts the discussion on a weird tripolar spectrum: you're either leftist, centrist, or rightwing (of which the poster is likely to posit themselves as a center, to avoid being called biased). I don't think it's terribly productive, and unless the article was calling for Bolshevik Revolution, I don't mind a certain bias. The fallacy here is that it's possible to come in with objective lens--it isn't.

Lamad1234 3y ago

[dead]

foobarchu 3y ago

Whether is a conscious decision by authorities is orthogonal to the point, it arguably even supports the article. Good intentions with bad outcomes are still bad outcomes. Ignoring the trends is to ignore those marginalized by them even more.

jph00 3y ago

There is only a single mention of anything even vaguely like what you're reacting to, which is the specific claim of an "intentionally faulty calculation as part of the computational RoboDebt program" in Australia. To jump from this specific (and AFAIK correct) claim to a "conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI" seems like quite a leap. The article largely deals with unfortunate side effects of a combination of feedback loops, implicit bias, economics, and lack of technical understanding in the broader community -- quite the opposite of any "conscious decision".

fnordpiglet 3y ago
Well, I think the preface leads with this statement, which does seem to indicate a fundamental bias in the thesis that’s overly political: Second, AI is used to disproportionately benefit the privileged while worsening inequality. The article talks a lot about the challenges of care delivery and how there appears to be systemic breakdowns in how patients are listened to and how demographics seems to lead to worse outcomes. These are all serious issues. It further states essentially that AI, at least learning based AI, learns what it is trained with and most training data indirectly encodes the various social biases that influence the data collection or what is collected in the data. The is true too. However neither of these have to do with AI curing cancer. They seem more statements that AI won’t solve all social ills, which is absolutely true. But these don’t speak to given a positive cancer diagnosis can AI provide a route to curing an individuals cancer. I suspect the answer is “maybe,” but none of the social and political points made are why. It’s because cancer is very complex and we need a vector that AI can generate some solution in to treat any specific cancer. Since there are many many types of cancer and many many variants of those types, as well as per individual cancer genetic variability, it seems unlikely “AI will cure cancer,” but I think it’s very likely AI will make cancer treatment much more personalized, discover many new therapeutic agents, and accelerate human driven research. It is already used in generic immunotherapy, mRNA design, and other treatments. As tools and techniques become better, as well as our understanding of how to apply it, AI will help a lot.

tbrownaw 3y ago

> leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people The recent Google Gemini image fiasco seems like a rather solid example of this being real.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

GuB-42 3y ago

Also, for the French example, it actually has nothing to do with AI. The problem was that the calculation for housing (not food) welfare benefits changed and the migration to the new software that came with it went poorly.