131–140 of 514 posts
This isn't just bad AI or ML. It's just straight up bad product management and development. Some small group of people decided to make this the behavior and implement it. Don't attribute to machines that which was clearly malice, ignorance, or apathy (or all of the above) by the builders.
This shouldn't be legal.
The whole issue around not telling you what rule you broke "because then you might work around it" is total BS. It's like a company I complained to the other day because they didn't label one of the inputs on their password reset form because "it would help a hacker know what to type in it" (it was the password reset password they expected but you wouldn't know). How much quicker would this be resolved if the first A…
In 1984 they don't have laws, only crimes, so whatever you do, you have to guess if it is illegal and will be punished or not. It is on purpose to keep the population in constant fear
>That’s right: I teach courses in Python and Pandas. Never mind that the first is a programming language and the second is a library for data analysis in Python. Meta’s AI system noticed that I was talking about Python and Pandas, assumed that I was talking about the animals (not the technology), and banned me. If this is true, that is insanely embarrassing for a company that purports to be a sophisticated programmat…
AIs and other opaque processes making decisions are incredibly frustrating. I'm still wondering why my tea-of-the-month business [0] got turned down by Stripe when I incorporated an LLC (technically a Godo Kaisha, as it is incorporated in Japan). It came as a surprise as it was perfectly fine by them for as long as it was a sole proprietorship. Which is why I strongly suspect the rejection came from an AI. At the tim…
I've stopped posting anything on the Facebook a few years ago and keep the account alive just to have a backup contact option with dumb corpos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not telling you whats wrong should be highly ilegal, given how important these systems can be for modern society.
Isn't it already under GDPR where entity using AI to make decisions need to provide an explanation how it arrived at it?
The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
But there's the usual "explicit consent" caveat, which Meta will argue they have because the user (as in: habitual consumer of harmful substances) has agreed to it in their TOS.
But then there is also a transparency requirement on automated decision making (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-15-gdpr/):
[data subject has access to] the existence of automated decision-making [and] meaningful information about the logic involved, as well as the significance and the envisaged consequences of such processing for the data subject.
This explicitly says that the user has the right to know what logic is employed by automated decision making systems.
The whole issue around not telling you what rule you broke "because then you might work around it" is total BS. It's like a company I complained to the other day because they didn't label one of the inputs on their password reset form because "it would help a hacker know what to type in it" (it was the password reset password they expected but you wouldn't know). How much quicker would this be resolved if the first A…
And some of these companies pride themselves as AI technology pioneers. Yet it seems their automated systems in this case are simply doing keyword matching. Mind-boggling!
Ha! I’m at Pycon MEA and yesterday a speaker from Namibia was talking about how one of the hurdles in evangelizing Python in Africa was that people thought of dangerous snakes and didn’t like it.