4 ms·
The fear is that by delegating to an ai, there's no recourse if the outcome for the person is undesirable (correctly or not). What is needed from the AI is a t
by chii 1y ago
The fear is that by delegating to an ai, there's no recourse if the outcome for the person is undesirable (correctly or not).
What is needed from the AI is a trace/line-of-reasoning to which a decision is derived. Like a court judgement, which has explanations attached. This should be available (or be made as part of the decision documentation).
- stephen_g 1y agoBut also an appeals process where it can be escalated to a real person. There should be nothing where any kind of AI system can make a final decision. I think the safest would be for a reviewer in an appeal process to even not have any access to any of the AI's decision or reasoning, since if the incorrect decision was based on hallucinated information, a reviewer might be biased to think it's true even if it was imagined.
- JimDabell 1y ago> There should be nothing where any kind of AI system can make a final decision. This would forbid things like spam filters.
- guappa 1y agoYou never look into your spam folder?
- JimDabell 1y agoA huge amount of spam never makes it into spam folders; it’s discarded silently.
- guappa 1y agoIf you use microsoft outlook most of the spam never makes it into the spam folder because it goes to the inbox. Do you have a source for your somewhat unbelievable claim?
- bandrami 1y agoMail server op here: mail exchangers (mine included) absolutely silently drop insane amounts of email submissions without any indication to the sender or the envelope recipient. At most there's a log the operator can look at somewhere that notes the rejection and whatever rules it was based on.
- guappa 1y agoWith no access to logs the claim is just handwaving.
- bandrami 1y agoBut I have access to logs, which is why I can describe to you how minimal the logging of email rejections is
- sokoloff 1y agoI run a family email server. I’ve worked with a few mail sysadmins trying to diagnose why some of our mail doesn’t get through. Even with a devoted and cooperative admin on the other side, I can absolutely believe that general logging levels are low and lots of mail is silently discarded as we’ve seen that in targeted tests when we both wanted to see the mail and associated log trail.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y agoTell me you've never run a mail server without telling me you've never run a mail server. It's pretty standard practice for there to be a gradient of anti-spam enforcement. The messages the scoring engine thinks are certainly spam don't reach end users. If the scoring engine thinks it's not spam, it gets through. The middle range is what ends up in spam folders.
- jcranmer 1y agoThe spam folder (or the inbox, in what you consider outlook) isn't for messages known to be spam; it's for messages that the filter thinks might have a chance of not being spam. Most spam is so low-effort that the spam rules route it directly to /dev/null. I want to say the numbers are like 90% of spam doesn't even make it past that point, but I'm mostly culling this from recollections of various threads where email admins talk about spam filtering.
- danielmarkbruce 1y agoThat's also a silly idea. Companies get sued all the time. There is recourse. If you run a bank that runs an AI model to make decisions on home loans and the effect is no black people get a loan, you are going to find yourself in court the exact same way as if you hire loan officers who are a bunch of racists. There is no difference. It is available to the entity running inference. Every single token and all the probabilities of every choice. But every decision made at every company isn't subject to a court hearing. So no, that's also a silly idea.
- kazinator 1y agoCompanies pretty much never get sued by anyone who is from a low income or otherwise disadvantaged group. It has to be pro bono work, or a big class action suit.
- danielmarkbruce 1y agoCompletely wrong. Companies get sued by various government agencies all the time. The FTC, DOJ, SEC, EPA, CFPB, probably others I can't think of. Even if you were right, AI doesn't change any of it - companies are liable.
- cess11 1y agoSo when the corporations and the state decide to be nasty, that's OK?
- genewitch 1y agoI've been getting a real "well, they deserved it" vibe off this site tonight. Thanks for not being that way.
- ToucanLoucan 1y agoThe user base for this site is incredibly privileged. Not meant as a judgement just a stated observation.
- jdietrich 1y agoThe EU has already addressed this in the GDPR. Using AI is fine, but individuals have a right to demand a manual review. Companies and government agencies can delegate work to AI, but they can't delegate responsibility. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
- briandear 1y agoA manual review then it’ll be rejected as well. Some HR person who doesn’t know the difference between Java and JavaScript isn’t going to result in better decisions. The problem is and has always been top of funnel screening.
- const_cast 1y agoThe danger is that AI can be biased, so if we don't know how it's making it's decisions it could be stupid. I mean, imagine that making an insurance claim with a black-sounding name results in a 5% greater chance of being rejected. How would we even know if this is the case? And, how do we prevent that? Now, of course humans are biased too, but there's no guarantee that the biases of humans are the same as the biases of whatever AI model is chosen. And with humans we can hold them accountable to some degree. We need that accountability with AI agents.