Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 163 posts

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#151

Post by AngrySkillzz »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #129
pedrosorio wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, it depends on what falls under your definition of AI. What kind of simpler statistical algorithms do you believe are used in news feeds (which do not belong in the "AI" category)?

I don't really consider any machine learning AI, but nobody agrees with me.

AI is a meaningless term. Expert systems are AI. ML is AI. Regressions are AI. I know that's hilarious but until we get a better definition of AI than "a system that exhibits learning and decision making" then regressions are AI.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#152

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

joshuamorton wrote: post #79
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. The other major problematic section is on energy use and un…

> I feel my comment tracks extremely well with the sections you cite and that it takes some mental gymnastics to read exactly the link you provided and then act like my comments somehow don’t track. The original criticisms were about failure of source data for large models (eg reddit for GPT) to account for fast shifts in social activism language specifically. I think this is a completely fair summary of the paper. B…

I’ll just add that I agree - I also implore readers to read sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the link because it explicitly and unequivocally backs up and confirms what I said about the “woke vocab” critique.

I hope people will read it, because a direct reading of it does support my position and does not support your position.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#154

Post by djoldman »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #138
djoldman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the paper's abstract: >In this paper, we study the task of reconstructing a facial image of a person from a short audio recording of that person speaking. I can imagine a potentially interesting application of this that has nothing to do with privacy violation or surveillance (that I can see): What if we could take an audio recording of an ancestor or someone else of interest, for whom we have no pictures, and o…

Generally the killer app for a technology (as I understand the use of the term) is something that is going to earn the creator of the technology lots of money, that basically everyone - either consumers or the members of some specific industry is all going to want that technology and will be willing to pay enough money that the owner of the technology becomes rich. I can see every police department and government age…

That's an interesting take.

I guess the question is, who decides what the killer app for a technology is?

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#155

Post by benlivengood »

djoldman wrote: post #21
thedevelopnik wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are very few, if any, clear cut, night-and-day subjects in ethics. Not wanting to engage with ethics because slippery slopes exist is simply turning from incredibly important work because it’s difficult and not work you want to do. These technologies can incarcerate people. It’s really important to dive onto the slippery slope and find out where it’s stable.

Agreed. Therefore, I ask: how does one tell the difference between software that can and cannot surveil?

The simplest criteria is whether the software records data that models the real world. If so, it can be used for surveillance by entering data about real people.

So most useful record-keeping software can be used for surveillance. Most software capable of inferring data about the real world from sensors can also be used for surveillance.

Most likely a better ethical framework for talking about surveillance is "how can surveillance (its components, owners, operators, and consumers) be identified in practice and what are its effects?" Surveillance is a subset of knowledge, and most knowledge is both useful and amoral. The use of knowledge for unethical things is the problem, not the knowledge itself.

Names, for example, are probably the oldest technology for surveillance; used since pre-history to refer to specific real people and data about them such as the names of locations they reside in or visit. No one blames names for the effects of surveillance.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#156

Post by glsdfgkjsklfj »

0x008 wrote: post #140
glsdfgkjsklfj wrote: post #41

A.I. is going to be a new wave to legal dark ages. since the 90s everything that involved a computer was not prosecuted because lawefforcement/regulation didn't have the skills, not for lack of laws. But new laws were created spelling out computers. A.I. is the same, it is not nothing different from enforcing existing laws and regulations, but because the agencies lack the skills, we will see a new wave of stupid law…

The problem is that politicians are not trained in every possible domain and don't have the time to really get into the intricacies of, say, Artificial Intelligence. So they have to decide what is allowed by using a simple heuristic - the flow of money and votes of people. As long as people do not complain, money wins. The problem is of course, always, (see climate crisis) that when the people start crying out, the d…

They do not have to. Why on earth would anyone have to understand the intricacies of A.I., other than the people implementing it to be held fully accountable for their work?

laws should not care about the means. only the results you want to promote/punish.

What if laws about murder had to be updated every time a new bullet caliber or knife length become popular?

yet that is exactly what happens with money laundering laws and computers. or media regulation. or investment schemes. Every new technology and everyone forget scams via email can fall under scams via courier mail. go figure.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#157

Post by benlivengood »

djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

1. Identifying the tools available for surveillance is vital to discovering, understanding, and predicting surveillance practices.

2. I instead presume ethicists object to the unethical surveillance of users by any means, and warn of risks they find or foresee.

There is no slippery slope; the unethical effects of surveillance should be countered by effective and ethical means. Banning technology is not ethical or particularly effective. Banning and punishing unethical behaviors is about the best we can do.

In other words, don't ban iPhones. Ban configuring iphones to surveil on users in unethical ways. 911/999 geolocation is ethical surveillance. Stalking apps are unethical surveillance. There's ethical grey in between.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#158

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

ativzzz wrote: post #123
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ But I'm happy (or privileged?) to live in a place where I do trust my law enforcement to be on the side of our community,” May I ask where that is? Because it could not be any location in the US.

I would say that the majority of communities in the US side with law enforcement, it's minorities that struggle more with police. The police will uphold the needs of the majority (or the government, which is elected by the majority)

As a lifelong US resident across about 10 different states, I disagree very strongly.

In mid-sized cities and large urban areas, the police are generally extremely corrupt and integrate with high level politicians and corporate interests for bribes, carrying out policing actions to serve cronyism, etc.

In small towns, police typically align with small town politics and specific locals with political power, ranging from judges to attorneys to business owners. If they decide you’re on the wrong side, they’ll find reasons to harass you, use speeding tickets, littering, frivolous fines, etc. Of course this often affects underrepresented groups, but can easily affect people in the majority if they just don’t like you.

Most communities see the police as a group to strictly stay away from. You hope that in a real emergency they will do their job, but more often they are just authority theater looking for a way to jam you up or exploit you. They absolutely are not good natured community members by default, and even if some specific cop is trying to do right by the community, nobody can assume that is trustworthy and everyone has to just stay away.

Policing, especially the procedural mechanics of fining or arresting people, is just fundamentally broken from first principles in the US, and most police systems exploit this for corrupt gains and abuses of power. Exceptions are so rare as to be ignored and assumed irrelevant.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#159

Post by _y5hn »

dvt wrote: post #35
_y5hn wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point is that biases are inherent in most models, no matter who the builders are.

This kind of statement, by its very nature, is vacuous and means nothing (and is most likely made by a non-expert). But on the surface of it seems deep and insightful. Note that it uses weasel words like "biases" and "models" which can actually mean a zillion things.

It means exactly what it means. No more, no less. sig above got it, so it's not impossible to imagine. No need to be an expert, that shouldn't be necessary. Sorry if I used difficult words. The point is to think it through for yourself anyways, and not depend blindly on authority.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#160

Post by nine_k »

A12-B wrote: post #142
nine_k wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> more by material conditions than ideas I suppose you have heard about religions and faiths. I'd hazard to say that about 1000 years of European history was shaped primarily by them. Major wars fought, new countries founded, major discoveries and inventions made or unmade and prohibited, people's daily lives shaped and defined. A similar thing has been occurring to Arabic world and neighboring peoples for about 1500…

You underestimate how those ideas are born. More often than not, there is an underlying material pretext. Christianity actually has a lot to say about resources for that very reason. Also, wars are fought over resources and then justified with religion by the select few that start them, primarily.

I don't think that control of Jerusalem would make a lot of business sense for medieval European states. Still they sent several crusades, each pretty expensive, and mostly failing.

Were it not for the special religious status of Jerusalem, they won't care. There were more important trade route chokepoints, and more convenient sea ports nearby, if trade control were the actual agenda.

Post reply on HN