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

Keep your AI claims in check

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 308 posts

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#131

Post by chris_wot »

omarfarooq wrote: post #110
IncRnd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider them to be AI? Random IF-THEN statements are not AI, or any program fragment would be AI. False advertisement is under the FTC's purvue. [1] When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their asset…

So what's the FTC's definition of AI then?

The same as the advertiser's definition.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#133

Post by mcbits »

briHass wrote: post #118
nfgrep wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not ominous, threatening, and somewhat juvenile IMO.

It's like something a small town sheriff would say in a press conference. The difference is, he'd probably be talking about violent crimes and speaking from the heart. This is a three-letter-agency of unelected law makers threatening who-knows-what over violations of ambiguous statutes they created.

Considering who said it and their track record, I don't need a machine to predict that I might (or might not) be fined 1% of the swimming pool full of solid gold coins that I'll be swimming in thanks to my false claims, to deter others from following the same path.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#134

Post by adamwk »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #92
threeseed wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTC is a regulator whose "principal mission is the enforcement of civil (non-criminal) antitrust law". So it is completely fine for them to remind citizens and companies of their obligations. Especially given in the AI space there is so much questionable behaviour going on.

This is not a reminder. It's a casual threat. And minor nit - this has nothing to do with antitrust. If you were going to highlight their mission, at least show the deceptive practices part.

In this case they aren't mutually exclusive. A government agency reminding the public it has legal authority to regulate is always threatening.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#135

Post by dragonwriter »

dylan604 wrote: post #4

wow, i would not have imagined a gov't agency to be agile enough to release something like this. i'm kind of impressed. here's to hoping this isn't just all bark and there's some actual teeth to his.

> wow, i would not have imagined a gov’t agency to be agile enough to release something like this.

The FTC is actually pretty good about doing things like this when a wave of similar types of borderline business practices erupt.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#139

Post by dcow »

dragonwriter wrote: post #135
dylan604 wrote: post #4

wow, i would not have imagined a gov't agency to be agile enough to release something like this. i'm kind of impressed. here's to hoping this isn't just all bark and there's some actual teeth to his.

> wow, i would not have imagined a gov’t agency to be agile enough to release something like this. The FTC is actually pretty good about doing things like this when a wave of similar types of borderline business practices erupt.

But, they're abominably bad at actually doing anything other than saying they might care.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#140

Post by nasseri »

edoloughlin wrote: post #82
mr_toad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ignorance of your "black box" excuses not Hopefully the FTC understands linear separability. Because I often get the impression that people who want ML models to be explicable don’t, and are expecting the mathematically impossible.

I rather think that they (the regulators) are saying that you can’t expect to use mathematical impossibility as a legal argument to avoid liability if your AI does material harm.

that is correct.
Post reply on HN