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

161–170 of 308 posts

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#161

Post by dcow »

O__________O wrote: post #146
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...

Can you link me to the text of the FTC Act that backs the claims made in the article that the FTC has authority over unfair consumer "algorithms"? They are quite editorialized. I responded in a sibling comment to someone saying the same thing. The only text I can find in the FTC act is related to unfair business practices with respect to competition against other businesses. Not "biased algorithms".

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#162

Post by rossdavidh »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #37
vorticalbox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plot twist chstGPT wrote it lol

I went ahead and put in this prompt to ChatGPT ( https://chat.openai.com/chat ): ==================== > Write a press release from the FTC that warns companies to be careful of promises using "AI". ==================== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FTC Warns Companies to be Careful of Promises using "AI" Washington, D.C. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning companies that use artificial intelligence (AI) to be car…

My God, we finally found a constructive use for ChatGPT. "Rewrite this government bureaucracy's muddle-by-committee-legalese document into something that sounds like it was written by a human."

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#164

Post by palata »

dylan604 wrote: post #115
palata wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the trick is to get too big to fail status before gov't agencies can come shut you down. While avoiding getting bought by Elon \o/

is that a concern anymore? he's so leveraged with the Twitter purchase, i doubt he could borrow enough money to buy a Tesla

That's probably a relief for many tech employees who won't get fired for no particular reason, then :D

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#165

Post by JoshCole »

danielmarkbruce wrote: post #60
makeitdouble wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t it their purpose to set the boundaries ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission The first section is a decent summary. Blog posts making casual threats about AI claims is a long way from appropriate. There are places for formality, and the law is one of them. There are serious people quitting the FTC over current leadership, claiming they engaged in behavior that is wildly overstepping their legal authority.

> The first section is a decent summary.

I read the first section and it doesn't seem to support your claim. In particular, it claims they have a mandate to protect consumers and links to another wiki entry on that topic. Within that wiki entry protection against misleading statements is mentioned as an aspect of protection of consumers. This seems to refute your claim of overreach, because in the blog post related to guidance to companies the tone which is consistently struck again and again is that companies should not make misleading statements about AI capabilities. This is complete alignment with their mandate according to the link which you claimed was a decent summary. It also in alignment with the rest of the wiki, which covers topics like false advertising.

> Blog posts making casual threats about AI claims is a long way from appropriate. There are places for formality, and the law is one of them.

The use of sequences of characters in digital spaces for the purposes of communication is not inherently inappropriate. This sequence of characters is on guidance for companies and requests they do not lie or make false claims about capabilities. This relates to their mandate, because they have a mandate to protect consumers from misleading statements. For example, lies about capabilities or false statements about capabilities made unknowingly under the presumption that models were more effective than they are.

> There are serious people quitting the FTC over current leadership, claiming they engaged in behavior that is wildly overstepping their legal authority.

Can you link to one of these people who are so serious they have quit making the claim that the FTC shouldn't provide guidance to companies via their government website at a URL under https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance for the purpose of discouraging companies from misleading consumers regarding the capabilities of their AI models?

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#166

Post by neonsunset »

fabianhjr wrote: post #32

This message is not new. Advertisers should take another look at our earlier AI guidance, which focused on fairness and equity but also said, clearly, not to overpromise what your algorithm or AI-based tool can deliver. Whatever it can or can’t do, AI is important, and so are the claims you make about it. You don’t need a machine to predict what the FTC might do when those claims are unsupported. Really great and omi…

[flagged]

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#167

Post by cma »

concordDance wrote: post #158
edoloughlin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't this kill AI as a product? Or at least mean that if you're too poor for a doctor or lawyer you can't fall back to the unreliable AI?

Aren't they really only saying you have to disclose it in your claims about the product?

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#168

Post by jsemrau »

hyferg wrote: post #122
jsemrau wrote: post #68

We are working on an AI product in a highly regulated industry (Investing). Recently we have been experimenting using the GPT3 API as a Junior Equity Analyst. On an eyeball check the results of the technology are impressive. The problem is that there is no way to validate the feedback on scale. I.e., we can't receive statistics about the feedback from the API. In contrast, for our own Entity Recognition models we can…

You can return log probs per token generated. This can be used to asses the confidence the model has in handling tasks which involve nominal data. If that’s not helpful, were you getting at having the model return some rich data about the attention weights that went into generating some token?

For most of our models we return more information. Especially if you look at it from a vendor/customer perspective I believe this to be quite important.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#169

Post by dcow »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #37
vorticalbox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plot twist chstGPT wrote it lol

I went ahead and put in this prompt to ChatGPT ( https://chat.openai.com/chat ): ==================== > Write a press release from the FTC that warns companies to be careful of promises using "AI". ==================== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FTC Warns Companies to be Careful of Promises using "AI" Washington, D.C. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning companies that use artificial intelligence (AI) to be car…

This reads much better than the actual piece XD

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#170

Post by zelphirkalt »

concordDance wrote: post #158
edoloughlin wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't this kill AI as a product? Or at least mean that if you're too poor for a doctor or lawyer you can't fall back to the unreliable AI?

Not if you "keep your claims in check" and have proper oversight of the output your AI generates. Then you will be ready at all times to step in, should something go south. Yes, maybe it does not scale up unlimited with proper oversight in place, but this is exactly what Google and co are missing these days and the reason they extract cash to no end. Proper oversight is completely missing.
Post reply on HN