4 ms·

>1. Enabling goes both ways, therefore bad actors can also be enabled by AI. >2. Accuracy of suggestions. Information provided by AI may be incorrect, be it co

>1. Enabling goes both ways, therefore bad actors can also be enabled by AI. >2. Accuracy of suggestions. Information provided by AI may be incorrect, be it code, how to brush one's teeth, or height of Arnold Schwarzenegger. At worst AI can respond against the users interests if the creator of the AI has configured it to do so. >3. Accuracy of Determinations. LLM-as-a-Judge falls under this criteria. This is one of the areas where a single error can magnify the most. sed s_AI_technology_g < quoted_text

Lerc 2y ago
That only really applies to 1. Technology in general does not have the ability to advise. Advice is already a legally protected category in many fields. Legal, medical, and financial advice are each covered by their own legislation to require the advisers to act in the interest of their client. Technology in general has been used for years to make determinations based upon physical characteristics. Weighs more than 50g, Temperature over 20C, Item A is heavier than Item B. The distinction with AI is that it will be making semantic determinations. Computers have also been used to implement policy decisions in a manner that makes them appear to be making determinations. When someone says "Computer says no", it's usually a human who made a decision. Attributing it to the computer just makes it impossible to argue against. The world would probably benefit from there being regulation on processes to enable people to challenge incorrect determination in this area as well. We have all seen the news stories of a big tech company cutting a user from a vital service because of an arbitrary seeming decision. Often the only challenge mechanism that is effective is when the situation receives widespread publicity. While the decision causing the issue is usually human in these instances, it is shielded behind a wall of technology leaving the user with no recourse.

Lerc 2y ago

That only really applies to 1. Technology in general does not have the ability to advise. Advice is already a legally protected category in many fields. Legal, medical, and financial advice are each covered by their own legislation to require the advisers to act in the interest of their client. Technology in general has been used for years to make determinations based upon physical characteristics. Weighs more than 50g, Temperature over 20C, Item A is heavier than Item B. The distinction with AI is that it will be making semantic determinations. Computers have also been used to implement policy decisions in a manner that makes them appear to be making determinations. When someone says "Computer says no", it's usually a human who made a decision. Attributing it to the computer just makes it impossible to argue against. The world would probably benefit from there being regulation on processes to enable people to challenge incorrect determination in this area as well. We have all seen the news stories of a big tech company cutting a user from a vital service because of an arbitrary seeming decision. Often the only challenge mechanism that is effective is when the situation receives widespread publicity. While the decision causing the issue is usually human in these instances, it is shielded behind a wall of technology leaving the user with no recourse.