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

141–150 of 308 posts

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#141

Post by mr_toad »

visarga wrote: post #127
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.

Actually, if you ask GPT3 to explain step by step how it arrived to the conclusion, it works pretty well and even has higher accuracy.

GPT is making it up.

It’s cobbling together an explanation from texts that explain how to solve a problem. It’s like a student who copies an answer, then copies the explanation as well.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#142

Post by crote »

mr_toad wrote: post #43
calr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorance of your "black box" excuses not

> 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.

From the FTC's perspective, stuff like that is just a technical detail. It is on the business to make sure that the final result can be explained.

If you can't explain the ML part due to whatever math detail, you better make sure you write a good wrapper around it to catch bad output which you can explain.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

gandalfgeek wrote: post #95

Just me, or does this read like a Godfather-style warning? "Nice AI product you got over there. Would be a shame if something happened to it." But what's different about this AI product/hype cycle compared to every other cycle that tech has had? Why does the FTC feel the need to make proactive enforcement warnings about this one? What about crypto? Or going back further, the dotcom era?

> But what’s different about this AI product/hype cycle compared to every other cycle that tech has had?

That its a hype cycle that is happening now, with a lot of shady actors overselling things.

FTC has done things like this during other cycles, too. Letting industries know they are aware, and simultaneously letting the public know to be aware (often, they’ll provide multiple messages, some specifically worded toward industry and others toward the public, but even with just one the message works both ways.)

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#144

Post by genocidicbunny »

dcow wrote: post #129

I mean cool. But honestly what is this "fairness and equity" bullshit? Trying to nip false advertising in the bud is one thing and I believe something the FTC has authority over. But who in the world granted the FTC the authority to pursue the fairness and equity of any product, let alone an AI product? I mean I'm not anti-fairness but I'm also astonished to see the FTC trying to regulate it. Thou shalt not sell a pr…

If you actually go read the linked article, it's pretty clearly spelled out:

The FTC has decades of experience enforcing three laws important to developers and users of AI:

    Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. That would include the sale or use of – for example – racially biased algorithms.
    Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA comes into play in certain circumstances where an algorithm is used to deny people employment, housing, credit, insurance, or other benefits.
    Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The ECOA makes it illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance.
Seems pretty clear cut to me that they're saying you can't use the 'but the AI did it' excuse if the net result is that your product is violating these.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

sam345 wrote: post #78

Do we really need the government to tell us what AI is? Does anybody really know or is the complete final authority on the subject? If The government had told us what the internet's limits were in the 90s it's doubtful they would have been correct and they would have scared away a lot of innovation.

> Do we really need the government to tell us what AI is?

That’s…very much not the focus of this piece.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#146

Post by O__________O »

dcow wrote: post #129

I mean cool. But honestly what is this "fairness and equity" bullshit? Trying to nip false advertising in the bud is one thing and I believe something the FTC has authority over. But who in the world granted the FTC the authority to pursue the fairness and equity of any product, let alone an AI product? I mean I'm not anti-fairness but I'm also astonished to see the FTC trying to regulate it. Thou shalt not sell a pr…

Suggest you read the link they provided, since they clearly to have legal authority over these topics as defined by US legal code:

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/blog/2021/04/aiming-tr...

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#147

Post by evrydayhustling »

mr_toad wrote: post #43
calr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignorance of your "black box" excuses not

> 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.

Lots of businesses deal with high complexity and open ended problems that lead to "inexplicable" risks. They address this by showing diligence in monitoring and mitigating risks, evolving their approach as new concerns are understood. AI companies should employ similar motions (and some do).

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#148

Post by l33t233372 »

visarga wrote: post #127
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.

Actually, if you ask GPT3 to explain step by step how it arrived to the conclusion, it works pretty well and even has higher accuracy.

But there’s no reason to believe that is actually how the result was generated.

The result was generated via a deep neural network, not by whatever explanation or reasoning it prints out when asked.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

dcow wrote: post #139
dragonwriter wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I would say hot & cold, and often driven by policy focus of the Administration (or at least the FTC majority, which is influenced by the party in the executive, but not necessarily completely aligned with the executive in detail.)

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#150

Post by rcme »

mr_toad wrote: post #72
pretendgeneer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the system your building is "mathematically impossible" to explain in a way that would be expected of every other system. Maybe you shouldn't be building that system.

Non-linear models often perform better. You’re never going to approach anything like GPT with a linear model.

Theoretically you could use a polynomial model which, while not linear, is pretty high on the explainability scale.
Post reply on HN