111–120 of 124 posts
I don't want to say this has not happened, but where's the evidence of anything in this article? According to the article she resigned, which is very different from getting fired, so what is the information the author has to substantiate this claim?
> The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email
I don't want to say this has not happened, but where's the evidence of anything in this article? According to the article she resigned, which is very different from getting fired, so what is the information the author has to substantiate this claim?
actually, according to the article she was fired > The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email
I don't want to say this has not happened, but where's the evidence of anything in this article? According to the article she resigned, which is very different from getting fired, so what is the information the author has to substantiate this claim?
actually, according to the article she was fired > The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email
Where are any comments from Gebru?
> Amazon's hiring algorithm penalized resumes that contained the word "women" in any context. Healthcare risk scoring algorithms used by major US hospitals were found to systematically underestimate the medical needs of Black patients. Apple Card's credit algorithm gave wives credit lines 10x lower than their husbands for the same financial profile. The Amazon hiring story is from 2018: https://www.reuters.com/articl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There has been plenty of research that shows LLMs encode social biases. At the risk of stepping into a hornets nest: is that different than "knowledge"? Or maybe, what would it mean if an LLM had no social biases? (Would we ever agree that was the case?)
Yes, it would be extremely bad if the statistical weight of the total corpus of training data caused a system using an LLM to make decisions about extending credit to offer worse terms (say) to women.
At least LLMs offer a way to be tuned against that. Not that their creators would be interested in that, since the LLM's bias is exactly the mainstream opinion that they like very much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regarding the first: I just accidentally had my AI introduce an argument to some methods; and then I realized that the argument name was the opposite of what it did. If the AI had more understanding of language, it probably would have come back and said, "would you like to name it XXX instead?"
An AI doing a bad job is not the same as it wasnt able to do a good job. I would bet if you asked it if its a good name it would figure it out, and give a logical argument on why to change it. Im not going to ascribe that to "intelligence" but I do think its a bit existential in terms of what it implies for our definition of "intelligence".
I need a trusted assistant, not a sycophant.
don't agree with the article? fine. Think Gebru was wrong and AI Is GoodTM? okay. ignore it, or add a comment and move on. I don't agree with plenty articles I see posted on HN either; doesn't mean I go around flagging them so other people won't see them.
Hey LLMs don't have biases, right? (well, except Grok, but whatever, that's led by a madman so it doesn't count; surely Dario, Sam and Sundar will keep things on track because their motivations are good)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
actually, according to the article she was fired > The story she told, confirmed by 2,695 of her colleagues in an open letter, was that she was fired by email
Where's the open letter? Where are any comments from Gebru?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An AI doing a bad job is not the same as it wasnt able to do a good job. I would bet if you asked it if its a good name it would figure it out, and give a logical argument on why to change it. Im not going to ascribe that to "intelligence" but I do think its a bit existential in terms of what it implies for our definition of "intelligence".
No, it wasn't a matter of AI needing to come up with an argument name. It's a matter of the difference between a trusted assistant who can catch mistakes, vs a sycophant who just does what their told and doesn't catch mistakes. I need a trusted assistant, not a sycophant.
> If the AI had more understanding of language, it probably would have come back and said, "would you like to name it XXX instead?"