Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#161

Post by lordCarbonFiber » Wed, Feb 17, 2021, 3:21 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #131

lordCarbonFiber wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mistake that a lot of people make when talking about bigotry is assuming it begins and ends with loud angry people yelling slurs. Building a system that genders people based on their voice isn't "inconsiderate" it's just a transphobic thing to do. Systematic biases don't require malice from any individual working within them to perpetuate; but that doesn't make them any less real and doesn't mean that we shouldn't…

It's surprising you're getting hammered for this sentiment, since as far as I can tell, no sentence is mistaken.

Say anything positive about trans people on this site and the downvotes come ^_^;;

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#162

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 11:23 AM UTC

Others wrote: post #119

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's to be entirely expected that people who reject the concept of "normal" find themselves at odds with statistical models.

Who are the “they” here? I’m assuming you’re not calling trans people abnormal, right?

No I'm not talking about trans people, I'm talking about people who bring up the phobias and the -isms anytime a statistical model comes out.

We're all abnormal, which is why it's important to be careful how we use statistical models, but the acknowledgment and exploitation of normality is not an attack against people who deviate from it, it is the foundation of statistics and all of science. Calling the authors bigots does nothing to improve these issues, rather the opposite.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#163

Post by 0x008 » Mon, Feb 22, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

glsdfgkjsklfj wrote: post #156

0x008 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not that simple. See for example how complicated the situation wrt. to copyright law turned out since you were able to digitally replicate things infinitely. A law made for analog purposes is not always 1:1 applicable to the digital world. And then there is international law which is a complete mess anyway.