91–100 of 154 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is needlessly pedantic, but private prisons are absolutely a thing in America.
Although private prisons exist (in strikingly small numbers[1]), private corporations can't just decide to throw you into a private prison on a whim; the government decides that. [1] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
Private prison kickbacks for conviction are a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you know that these technologies are detrimental to people's well-being? Some activists claim that things like facial recognition, ad targeting, and personalized risk scoring are detrimental, but are these activists correct? I don't think so! All these technologies give us new capabilities and allow us to more precisely understand and shape the world. Every single time humanity has gained new abilities --- fro…
> All these technologies give us new capabilities and allow us to more precisely understand and shape the world. Allow who to shape the world, exactly? Because it's not me, and it's probably not you. Technology gives power to those who control it, and control over face-recognition tech, personalized risk-scoring and ad tech is in the best cases behind several layers of bureaucratic abstraction. Our world is being sha…
After we destroy AI we should make sure nobody does any data analysis by hand or other means. Just to be sure. Because there are people who would justify the exact same decisions even without AI. They just use data to do what they want. So let's destroy data too, and math so nobody can do anything biased or wrong.
* systems which establish priority
in the dispatching of emergency services
* systems determining access to or
assigning people to educational institutes
* recruitment algorithms
* those that evaluate credit worthiness
* those for making individual risk assessments
* crime-predicting algorithms
> those designed or used in a manner that manipulates human behaviour, opinions or decisions ...causing a person to behave, form an opinion or take a decision to their detriment This appears to obviously apply to the Facebook wall. You can find a high-profile example of this in [0], but [1] explains how this manipulation, which optimizes "engagement", is built deep into Facebook's design. I think the case that it cau…
Europe != Obscure department of the European Commission issuing unsolicited opinions
I beg to differ. "AI" is already rejecting CVs and untransparently keeping people unemployed. People do care about how to use this tool responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although private prisons exist (in strikingly small numbers[1]), private corporations can't just decide to throw you into a private prison on a whim; the government decides that. [1] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-priso...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal Private prison kickbacks for conviction are a thing.
Solving corruption is orthogonal to the question of whether private corporations can perform extra-judicial imprisonment with impunity. That really just doesn't happen at scale, because it can't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, what good is technology for the sake of technology if it’s detrimental to people’s well-being? Technology to conquer ills, yes. Technology which alienates people, no. It’s kind of like the goths vs the romans or the inuit vs europeans. Is the value of progress more than the value of self-worth?
How do you know that these technologies are detrimental to people's well-being? Some activists claim that things like facial recognition, ad targeting, and personalized risk scoring are detrimental, but are these activists correct? I don't think so! All these technologies give us new capabilities and allow us to more precisely understand and shape the world. Every single time humanity has gained new abilities --- fro…
OK, but no one is actually arguing that. The problem starts when the technology gets abused. We need safeguards against abuse of AI in much the same way as we need it for nuclear weapons and energy and, more recently, social media (eg GDPR protections).
No one actually wants a society being ruled by computers, except maybe the people running those computers. This is at least a step in the right direction.
Humans in charge are known for injustice, kickbacks, favor trading, selective enforcement and other forms of corruption and abuse. Properly engineered and regularly reviewed open source systems with balance checks might just get us closer to a rules-based system that provides a level playing field for everyone. Given all the known biases of current AI systems, we are certainly far from ready for it, but the prospect of transforming large parts of government into an open source "social operating system" that automatically and fairly offers basic services according to clearly coded and broadly enforced rules looks like a desirable goal in the (very) long term.
Many laws can be expressed as computer code. Where they cannot is often due to deliberate vagueness built in to leave scope for future interpretation as new cases arise. This suggests that we could express laws in computer code that raises a HumanInputRequiredException in the cases currently handled with deliberate vagueness. The resulting reduction in vagueness would remove a huge amount of discretion that currently facilitates corruption and abuse of power while ensuring ultimate human control and human-directed evolution of the law.