3 ms·
I think that’s really important to reinforce! You probably know better, but lots of the less technical people I talk to don’t think that way. It’s not at all ob
by ddulaney 2y ago
I think that’s really important to reinforce! You probably know better, but lots of the less technical people I talk to don’t think that way. It’s not at all obvious to an observer who doesn’t know how this stuff works that a computer could be racist or misogynist.
- CamperBob2 2y agoYeah, I do think that's going to be a problem. Years ago, my GF asked me why we bother with judges and juries, given all the uneven sentencing practices and other issues with the current legal system. "Why can't the courts run on computers?" This was back in the pre-Alpha Go era, so when I answered her, I focused on technical reasons why Computers Can't Do That... reasons that are all basically obsolete now, or soon will be. The real answer lies in the original premise of her question: because Humans Also Can't Do That with the degree of accuracy and accountability that she was asking for. Our laws simply aren't compatible with perfect mechanized jurisprudence and enforcement. Code may be law, but law isn't code. That problem exists in a lot of areas where people will be looking to AI to save us from our own faults. Again, this has little to do with how training is conducted, or how humans participate in it. Just getting the racism and misogyny out of the training data isn't going to be enough.
- Terr_ 2y agoAlso: It's not just about what task can/can't can't be done, but what other frameworks you/can't build around the executor to detect errors and handle exceptional cases.