81–90 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies pretty much never get sued by anyone who is from a low income or otherwise disadvantaged group. It has to be pro bono work, or a big class action suit.
Completely wrong. Companies get sued by various government agencies all the time. The FTC, DOJ, SEC, EPA, CFPB, probably others I can't think of. Even if you were right, AI doesn't change any of it - companies are liable.
You can't simply look at a LLM's code and determine if, for example, it has racial biases. This is very similar to a human. You can't look inside someone's brain to see if they're racist. You can only respond to what they do.
If a human does something unethical or criminal, companies take steps to counter that behaviour which may include removing the human from their position. If an AI is found to be doing something wrong, one company might choose to patch it or replace it with something else, but will other companies do the same? Will they even be alerted to the problem? One human can only do so much harm. The harm a faulty AI can do potentially scales to the size of their install base.
Perhaps, in this sense, AI's need to be treated like humans while accounting for scale. If an AI does something unethical/criminal, it should be "recalled". i.e. Taken off the job everywhere until it can be demonstrated the behaviour has been corrected. It is not acceptable for a company, when alerted to a problem with an AI they're using, to say, "Well, it hasn't done anything wrong here yet."
I think most people who want to "opt out of AI" don't actually understand where AI is used. Every Google search uses AI, even the ones that don't show an "AI panel" at the top. Every iOS spellcheck uses AI. Every time you send an email or make a non-cryptocurrency electronic payment, you're relying on an AI that verifies that your transaction is legitimate. I imagine the author would respond, "That's not what I mean!…
Somewhere in 2024 I noticed that "AI" shifted to no longer include "machine learning" and is now closer to "GenAI" but still bigger than that. It was never a strict definition, and was always shifting, but it made a big shift last year to no longer include classical ML. Even fairly technical people recognize the shift.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies pretty much never get sued by anyone who is from a low income or otherwise disadvantaged group. It has to be pro bono work, or a big class action suit.
Completely wrong. Companies get sued by various government agencies all the time. The FTC, DOJ, SEC, EPA, CFPB, probably others I can't think of. Even if you were right, AI doesn't change any of it - companies are liable.
Second, have you ever look at rhat space? Because the agencies that done this were already weak, the hurdles you had to overcome were massive and the space was abused by companie to the maximum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely wrong. Companies get sued by various government agencies all the time. The FTC, DOJ, SEC, EPA, CFPB, probably others I can't think of. Even if you were right, AI doesn't change any of it - companies are liable.
So when the corporations and the state decide to be nasty, that's OK?
Our intellectual property, privacy, and consumer protection laws were all tested by LLM tech, and they failed the test. Same as with social media — with proof it has caused genocides and suicides, and common sense saying it’s responsible for an epidemic of anxiety and depression, we have failed to stop its unethical advance.
The only wining move is to not play the game and go offline. Hope you weren’t looking to date, socialize, bank, get a ride, order food at restaurants, and do other things, because that has all moved online and is behind a cookie warning saying “We Care About Your Privacy” and listing 1899 ad partners the service will tell your behavioral measurements to for future behavior manipulation. Don’t worry, it’s “legitimate interest”. Then it will send an email to your inbox that will do the same, and it will have a tracking pixel so a mailing list company can get a piece of that action.
We are debating what parts of the torment nexus should or shouldn’t be allowed, while being tormented from every direction. It’s actually getting very ridiculous how too little too late it is. But I don’t think humanity has a spine to say enough is enough. There are large parts of humanity that like and justify their own abuse, too. They would kiss the ground their abusers walk on.
It is the end stage of corporate neo-liberalism. Something that could have worked out very well in theory if we didn’t become mindless fanatics[0] of it. Maybe with a little bit more hustle we can seed, scale and monetize ethics and morals. Then with a great IPO and an AI-first strategy, we could grow golden virtue retention in the short and long-run…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It also influences hiring decisions, rental applications, loans, credit scoring, social media feeds, government services and even what news or information we see when we search online. I think, more frighteningly, the potential for it to make decisions on insurance claims and medical care.
There is an underlying assumption there that is certainly incorrect. So many stupid comments about AI boil down to "humans are incredibly good at X, we can't risk having AI do it". Humans are bad at all manner of things. There are all kinds of bad human decisions being made in insurance, health care, construction, investing, everywhere. It's one big joke to suggest we are good at all this stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fear is that by delegating to an ai, there's no recourse if the outcome for the person is undesirable (correctly or not). What is needed from the AI is a trace/line-of-reasoning to which a decision is derived. Like a court judgement, which has explanations attached. This should be available (or be made as part of the decision documentation).
That's also a silly idea. Companies get sued all the time. There is recourse. If you run a bank that runs an AI model to make decisions on home loans and the effect is no black people get a loan, you are going to find yourself in court the exact same way as if you hire loan officers who are a bunch of racists. There is no difference. It is available to the entity running inference. Every single token and all the prob…
[dead]
> silence is interpreted as consent silence is indeed concent (of the status quo). You need to vote with your wallet, personal choice and such - if you want to be comfortable, choosing the status quo is the way, and thus consent. There's no possibility of a world where you get to remain comfortable, but still get to have a "choice" to dictate a choice contrary to the status quo.