4 ms·
Any test with a very small true positive and even negligible false positive rate risks an unreasonably high number of false positives when applied to a large po
by michaelmrose 2y ago
Any test with a very small true positive and even negligible false positive rate risks an unreasonably high number of false positives when applied to a large population. This is especially bad with a squishy non-scientific topic.
If you have 50,000 employees and are screening for a risk that is 1 in 1M with a 5% false positive rate you are going to be very disappointed when over the next decade it identifies 25,000 would be shooters when you have zero actual active shooters. Even better you will probably stop disregarding such a test and miss if if it actually happens.
As awesome the fact that skynet is always watching will probably cause people to manage their workspace personas to a psychotic degree that will surely ratchet up workspace stress to new highs. Deprived of actual data on what triggers the eye of sauron 100 wrong theories about how to avoid doing so will proliferate and your studied population will both diverge from the norm the system was designed to operate on and become progressively worse.
A few years later a study will prove that the AI inadvertently learned to discriminate against minorities, women, or people in other time zones through things the training population did without thinking and the people pushing it will look like bigots. Instead of ejecting we will try to fix it. Either this doesn't work or if it does people accuse skynet of being woke.
- hex4def6 2y agoI question you "1 in 1M". I think it's probably multiple orders of magnitude more common that that. There is a continuum of how damaging that data leakage is, and/or who the data is flowing to. Just through personal anecdote, I can think of maybe 5 examples of people I directly know 'retaining' stuff like outlook email PSTs, training documents, etc. And I'm sure there are many more people in my immediate circle who have done similar stuff. The espionage situation is perhaps more rare, but still prevalent. It's a common situation for people to hang around outside the Foxconn campus soliciting data for the latest iphone / what-have-you. Lots of money to be made have a 2-3 month jumpstart on your competitors when you design a 3rd-party case, for example.
- michaelmrose 2y agoThe more subtle the problems the more ridiculously poor the AI would be at catching it. I question the chances it will be any better at catching the fellow who comes back in with the AR than reasonable management. Insofar as catching people who are simply disloyal I would count it worthless. At best it might make a bad guess at which employees are presently upset or dissatisfied until it becomes obvious how to fake it by which time it has become easy to guess who hates you because living under the eye of sauron it will be 90% of your staff!