3 ms·
Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? I ask this in good faith, because my observation of the last few years is tha
by chao- 1y ago
Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"?
I ask this in good faith, because my observation of the last few years is that the incidents still occur, with all of the harms to individuals also occurring. Then, after N number of incidents, the company pays a fine*, and the company does not necessarily make substantive changes. Superficial changes, but not always meaningful changes that would prevent future harms to individuals.
*Do these fines tend to be used to compensate the affected individuals? I am not educated on that detail, and would appreciate info from someone who is.
- philipwhiuk 1y ago> Do those regulations really "ensure that [incidents like this] could not happen"? Regulations never prevent stuff happening. They offer recompense when they do. Laws don't either. In terms of distribution of fines, it is rare.
- CamperBob2 1y agoSomething prevented these services from originating in the EU to begin with. If not overregulation, what's responsible?
- diffeomorphism 1y agoHistory, venture capital, single language market, ... . Probably a dozen different factors you could point at instead.
- Ralfp 1y agoWe've had services like that. But US competition employing thousands of people and churning billions in budgets killed them off.
- gmueckl 1y agoI don't recall the full stack of EU rwgulations in detail, but a requirement that appeal to an actual human is possible after automated decisions is in there somewhere AFAIK.
- david_allison 1y ago> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/ https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/
- nalak 1y agoIf I were Google I would make it a point to have the human always confirm what the AI said.
- badsectoracula 1y agoWhy?
- naIak 1y agoBecause humans cost a lot of money and I don’t want to train my users to think they can get a more favourable answer by asking to have a human review the decision.
- sidewndr46 1y agoThat'd likely be a violation of some kind of laws, but you could probably work to have HR ensure that various teams were aligned in the goals of the operational attributes the company finds necessary to produce an an environment which maximizes the opportunities for individuals to contribute without fear of repression.
- chao- 1y agoThat's a good requirement to place on these services. Thanks for educating me.
- sidewndr46 1y agoBut what would it matter? Wouldn't the human be an employee of the company that already made the automated decision?