Live data from Hacker News

Keep your AI claims in check

ftc.gov

201–210 of 308 posts

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#201
post #197

Serious question: if I keep all known protected class information out of my pricing model, and it still decides to charge macOS users more for the product than Windows users, is it discrimination? Is it unfair? Now if I go and look at real outcomes and add back in the protected class information that was withheld from the model and run an analysis, and the results turn out to be post-facto biased, is it discriminatio…

> Doe the FTC have an objective and consistent framework for evaluating this stuff?

No. If they say that, they are lying or ignorant.

https://fairmlbook.org/tutorial2.html

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#202
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bayesian regression is technically analytical, too, I suppose. Really exposes the blurriness of such a vague term as even "machine learning" let alone "AI". Bayesian regression is often not really considered AI, unless it's incorporated in a more complicated pipeline (e.g. Bayesian optimization). Same goes for linear regression, then: alone it is just a model.

and there are many more things like this. Back in the day "expert systems" were AI. For any given piece of software, it will meet some definition of AI from some time period. The term AI is about as concrete as "awesome".

Also video game AI’s. I like to use that as a quick test of a definition of “AI” because video game AI’s span a very wide range of levels of sophistication as well as algorithms, many of which look like deterministic decision trees, most of which don’t use any ML or even regressions.

Arguably that’s a different overload of the term “AI” the way it’s used in business, but I think it’s a good reminder that AI as a field has a long history that developed separately from ML and data science.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#203

“It’s an ambiguous term with many possible definitions.” “Does the product actually use AI at all? If you think you can get away with baseless claims…” Last I checked basic optimization techniques like simulated annealing and gradient descent - as well as a host of basic statistical tools - are standard parts of an introductory AI textbook. I’ve been on the receiving end of government agency enforcement (SEC) and it…

From their own report that they linked to:

>In the 2021 Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Federal Trade Commission to study and report on whether and how artificial intelligence (AI) “may be used to identify, remove, or take any other appropriate action necessary to address” a wide variety of specified “online harms.”

>We assume that Congress is less concerned with whether a given tool fits within a definition of AI than whether it uses computational technology to address a listed harm. In other words, what matters more is output and impact. Thus, some tools mentioned herein are not necessarily AI-powered. Similarly, and when appropriate, we may use terms such as automated detection tool or automated decision system, which may or may not involve actual or claimed use of AI.

Quite hilarious really!

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

I asked ChatGPT to summarize the article (prompt was "Summarize the following article in 10 sentences"):

> The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a warning to companies using the term "artificial intelligence" in advertising, highlighting that some AI products might not work as advertised. The FTC stated that AI hype is playing out in many products, from toys to cars, and chatbots, and companies should ensure they are not making false or unsubstantiated claims about a product's efficacy. The regulator is asking companies using AI in their advertising to ensure that they are not exaggerating what their AI product can do, promising that their AI product does something better than a non-AI product without adequate proof, or are aware of the risks. Additionally, the FTC is asking if the product actually uses AI at all, noting that merely using an AI tool in the development process is not the same as a product having AI in it. Advertisers should refer to the FTC's earlier AI guidance, which emphasized fairness and equity while cautioning against overpromising what an AI-based tool can deliver.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#205

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…

> You don’t need a machine to predict what the FTC might do when those claims are unsupported.

Indeed you don't, but one would tell you: The error minimizing prediction is that the FTC will absolutely nothing, since that's what they usually do.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#207

This is great, but it needs examples. I'll give you one: ChatGPT. Here's what the main page has to say: > We’ve trained a model called ChatGPT which interacts in a conversational way. The dialogue format makes it possible for ChatGPT to answer followup questions, admit its mistakes, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. This is some careful writing. Most important are the weasel words, "pos…

> This is some careful writing. Most important are the weasel words,

So what do you want, a full refund? OpenAI is probably pretty busy, so I'll handle that for them and give you your nothing back. Glad to be of service. :P

> It would be really useful if we could just teach it to do the second one, right? But we can't, because ChatGPT never draws a distinction between grammar and subjects.

The structure of the world, as expressed in its training data, is part of it's 'grammar'. It absolute can and does favor giving truthful answers even though a lie is equally grammatical English.

One only need spend a minute looking at HN though to see that "I don't know" is really not part of the language used in most places online, so far they haven't come up with a way of training the model on all the places where someone saw something and decided to say nothing. :)

> In a word: training.

We all also learn about the world through training. The LLMs aren't at all like human minds-- they're fixed depth circuits and can only engage in longer thoughts by 'thinking out loud', as an example. But to say it can't distinguish truth from lies because both are valid language sounds like an error resulting from hearing the title "language model". LLMs model the world through language.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#208
post #70

Oh man... And this is a government agency. Such proactive and articulate. No wonder US is where it is for it's wonderful state apparatus. It certainly has its fair share of failures but this is at a whole another level.

I'm not sure I follow, I thought the article was quite articulate. Should a government agency not be proactive and articulate?

That's what I am saying exactly that it is very articulate and pro consumer. And that US is where it is because of its state apparatus. There are surely some failures here and there but it functions nevertheless.

How do you read it differently?

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#209
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.

Its incredible. The language is not bureaucratic, its elegant, precise, and clear. Like written by a passionate person who cares about the topic, rather than a government drone.

They did say “new-fangled” though.

Re: Keep your AI claims in check

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree with the basic premise ("AI" as a specific falsifiable term is hard to pin down due to the ubiquity associated with the term); I do think there are specific cut-and-dry circumstances where the FTC could falsifiably prove your product does not include AI. For example, using an alternative of Amazon's Mechanical Turk to process data is clearly a case where your product does not use AI. Which I be…

It makes sense to protect investors from falsely investing in new "AI" tech that isn't really new AI tech, but why do consumers need to be protected? If a software product solves their problem equally well with deep learning or with a more basic form of computation, why is the consumer harmed from false claims of AI? To put it another way, if you found out that Chat GPT was implemented without any machine learning, a…

AI is not machine learning. And no, if someone could implement something similiar using gotos it would have the same value.
Post reply on HN