3 ms·
It seems like the AI decision making is 'immutable' but in the end it will always come down to training data
by elif 2y ago
It seems like the AI decision making is 'immutable' but in the end it will always come down to training data
- upghost 2y agothis is a so-often overlooked point.
- noduerme 2y agoIt's worse than that. The entire notion of an independent arbiter is deceptive at best, because the decision making will always come down to how the questions are framed. The claim here is that an automated process backed with enough data and computational power can distill any of the world's most intractable conflicts and come up with a compromise immune to "toxicity" and human bad-faith. I'd submit that in any conflict in which at least one actor is acting in bad faith to begin with, in the absence of an overriding ethical framework, any such compromise would result in a worse outcome than making a decision that one side was right and the other wrong. It's the compromise between hens and wolves.
- hoofish 2y agoIn CGT, there is no third party arbitrator, no admin, the resolution is reached player to player. thx for response
- w10-1 2y agoIf/since the universe of human bad faith is finite, it does seem possible (and useful) to detect all such forms in transactions that are on the record. This won't solve out-of-band corruption and might indeed increase its value, and hence increase the value of participating in a corruption network. gosh darn unintended consequences...
- hoofish 2y agoYou're really way out of left field. You are welcome to a live demonstration of how CGT works.
- hoofish 2y agoin CGT, humans make the final decisions, it is a game designed for humans first, AI just came later
- hoofish 2y agoNo, that is a misunderstanding. No third party or no AI, or AI training data, is used to arrive at a consensus decision, humans have over-ride in the system.