151–154 of 154 posts
A journalist has waffled about someone tweeting that an out-of-date 80-page draft from January of ... something ... the journalist can't be bothered to tell us its proper title ... has been "leaked" but not actually published for us to read. However, an up-to-date version of whatever it is will be officially published next week.
So perhaps I'll just wait till then before trying to form an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parent mentioned that AI is used to sneak in discrimination through the back door , implying that discrimination wouldn’t be there (or there would be less) without AI.
Here's an example: mortgages (in the USA) used to be approved or denied by humans, but there were certain neighborhoods where only white people were allowed. Now, there's a law against that. In the future, there will be an AI system to approve or deny mortgages, based off of historical training data. Since that data includes the redlining era, the AI will learn to make racist decisions. Most people do not understand…
This is a crude assumption.
AI researchers are well aware of these potentialities, and you'd (or the government) would have to provide evidence that these systems are racist before banning them.
The basic premise you're making is: "The world is unfair -> AI uses data from the real world -> the AI is racist".
Insurance fiduciaries already use an incredible amount of 'training data' in their work, and we don't have hugely material problems there.