381–390 of 424 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?". Just rerun the application with higher income until you get a pass. Then tell the person their application was rejected because income was not at least whatever that passing income amount was. Maybe also vary some other inputs to see if it…
> If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?". But banks, at least in my country (central EU), don't have to explain their reasons for rejecting a mortgage application. So why would their automated systems have to?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Credit_Opportunity_Act#R...
[2] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/do-lenders-have-to-t...
Not using AI will soon be an unacceptable risk.
With thinking like that it's not a far bridge to, "not leaking all your private keys will soon be an unacceptable risk."
The EU once again races toward premature regulation. Europe's tech sector will continue to wither as America and others surge ahead. You can't regulate your way to technological leadership.
Yeah let's wait until more "AI that tries to infer people’s emotions at work or school." or "AI that manipulates a person’s decisions subliminally or deceptively." are deployed and start spamming crap before making any regulation ...
The EU once again races toward premature regulation. Europe's tech sector will continue to wither as America and others surge ahead. You can't regulate your way to technological leadership.
If you read the list of unacceptable things they're actually super reasonable and kinda crazy to think american companies will be allowed to (and probably will) participate in
You can write about anything to make it sound bad, even when it's good, and vice versa.
Need to focus on outcomes.
This is a strange one. Arguably this is the objective of marketing in general. Therefore, I'm not sure why draw the line only when AI is involved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've personally reviewed all 7b parameters of my model and they won't adapt after deployment :)
That means you can answer the question whether they comply with the relevant law in the necessary jurisdiction and can prove that to the regulator. That should be easy, right? If it's not, maybe it's better to use two regexps instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That means you can answer the question whether they comply with the relevant law in the necessary jurisdiction and can prove that to the regulator. That should be easy, right? If it's not, maybe it's better to use two regexps instead.
The model says yes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?". Just rerun the application with higher income until you get a pass. Then tell the person their application was rejected because income was not at least whatever that passing income amount was. Maybe also vary some other inputs to see if it…
> If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?". But banks, at least in my country (central EU), don't have to explain their reasons for rejecting a mortgage application. So why would their automated systems have to?
There is so called three line system -- operational line does the actual thing (approves or rejects the mortgage), the second line gives the operational line the manual to do so the right way, the internal audit should keep an eye that whatever the first line is doing is actually what the policy says they should be doing.
It's entirely plausable that operational line is an actual LLM which is trained on a policy that the compliance department drafted and the audit department occasionally checks the outputs of the modal against the policy.
But at this point it's much easier to use LLM to write deterministic function in your favorite lisp based on the policy and run that to make decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the thinking machine rejects my mortgage application, it should be possible to point out which exact rule triggered the rejection. With rules explicitly set by an operator it's possible. It's also possible to say that the rules in place comply with the law and stay compliant during the operation, for example it doesn't unintentionally guess that I'm having another citizenship based on my surname or postal code.
If the mortgage application evaluation system is deterministic so that the same input always produces the same output then it is easy to answer "Why was my application rejected?". Just rerun the application with higher income until you get a pass. Then tell the person their application was rejected because income was not at least whatever that passing income amount was. Maybe also vary some other inputs to see if it…
Why do you need an AI if what you are doing is "if X < N" ?