In related news, Tesla has been forced to tell the truth about "Full" Self Driving:
https://electrek.co/2023/02/27/tesla-disappoints-owners-upda...
Keep your AI claims in check
151–160 of 308 posts
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#152“It’s an ambiguous term with many possible definitions.” “Does the product actually use AI at all? If you think you can get away with baseless claims…” Last I checked basic optimization techniques like simulated annealing and gradient descent - as well as a host of basic statistical tools - are standard parts of an introductory AI textbook. I’ve been on the receiving end of government agency enforcement (SEC) and it…
[deleted]
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#153This message is not new. Advertisers should take another look at our earlier AI guidance, which focused on fairness and equity but also said, clearly, not to overpromise what your algorithm or AI-based tool can deliver. Whatever it can or can’t do, AI is important, and so are the claims you make about it. You don’t need a machine to predict what the FTC might do when those claims are unsupported. Really great and omi…
I'll believe the words when I see them take action. As the text itself points out, the message is not new, and that just makes it look worse for them.
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#154I mean cool. But honestly what is this "fairness and equity" bullshit? Trying to nip false advertising in the bud is one thing and I believe something the FTC has authority over. But who in the world granted the FTC the authority to pursue the fairness and equity of any product, let alone an AI product? I mean I'm not anti-fairness but I'm also astonished to see the FTC trying to regulate it. Thou shalt not sell a pr…
That, as the article clearly lays out, is a separate but closely related subject. It's a concern founded on the same common misconceptions about AI that they are talking about here.
Machine learning models are not well equipped to handle the issues of prejudice or fairness, because those are, in the most literal sense, subjective.
Machine learning models as a feature do not interact with subjects. Subjects are too computationally hard, so they were optimized out instead.
As a latent result, any behavior implemented with machine learning models must be carefully curated, otherwise subjective patterns like prejudice and groupthink will pollute the model.
This is a trivially predictable continuation of prejudice as a language feature: it's functionally much easier to generate a continuation out of a biased circular position than it is to generate one that includes objective consideration.
In fact, objectivity itself is a feature that has not been implemented yet in any AI software. Prejudice, on the other hand, is so easy to implement that it happens by accident.
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#155I don't understand. This is, like, the government, making a rational and proactive warning to business about not doing shady stuff under cover of the latest buzzword. It's like there's nothing you can rely on any more.
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#156I mean cool. But honestly what is this "fairness and equity" bullshit? Trying to nip false advertising in the bud is one thing and I believe something the FTC has authority over. But who in the world granted the FTC the authority to pursue the fairness and equity of any product, let alone an AI product? I mean I'm not anti-fairness but I'm also astonished to see the FTC trying to regulate it. Thou shalt not sell a pr…
If you actually go read the linked article, it's pretty clearly spelled out: The FTC has decades of experience enforcing three laws important to developers and users of AI: Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. That would include the sale or use of – for example – racially biased algorithms. Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FCRA comes into play in certain circumstances where an…
If you actually go read the FTC act, section 5 is about preventing unfair methods of competition. It's massive stretch to interpret that as "deploying an unfair consumer algorithm".
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#157We are working on an AI product in a highly regulated industry (Investing). Recently we have been experimenting using the GPT3 API as a Junior Equity Analyst. On an eyeball check the results of the technology are impressive. The problem is that there is no way to validate the feedback on scale. I.e., we can't receive statistics about the feedback from the API. In contrast, for our own Entity Recognition models we can…
I'm not sure exactly what the ask here is. >In contrast, for our own Entity Recognition models we can (and do) calculate probabilities that explain why a certain entity is shown. >Hence, I think for API users of GPT3, OpenAI should return additional statistics why a certain result is returned the way it is to make it really useful and more importantly compliant. For LLMs, you can get the same thing: the distribution…
The problem in a nutshell, and the one the FTC had pointed out, is Model explainability. I was working in the past of an AI for automated lending decisions. We were asked to be able to explain every single decision the engine took.
If now a news article reaches our AI engine, it will tag, categorize, classify, and rank this news article. All based on models that are explainable.
LLMs, at least how I personally implemented them in the past, create a huge black box that is largely non-explainable.
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ignorance of your "black box" excuses not Hopefully the FTC understands linear separability. Because I often get the impression that people who want ML models to be explicable don’t, and are expecting the mathematically impossible.
I rather think that they (the regulators) are saying that you can’t expect to use mathematical impossibility as a legal argument to avoid liability if your AI does material harm.
Doesn't this kill AI as a product?
Or at least mean that if you're too poor for a doctor or lawyer you can't fall back to the unreliable AI?
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#159I hope people develop a better understanding of this than the bloody coin fiasco. Society can’t effectively deal with something it considers magic - even a low resolution understanding + accessible expertise will help massively (think law or medicine). Take Chat GPT. In the case of humans, language is just a way to express knowledge. In ChatGPT its the other way around - the focus is the correctness of the word chain…
I have no higher hopes that AI products will be regulated any better than cryptocurrencies. Fundamentally they both operate at breakneck speeds which regulators have proven they can only, at best, react to damage being done. Maybe they surprise us all and proactively regulate AI well, but they'd have to prove that instead of being taken at their word like this press release. Technology's speed combined with human gre…
We will see regulation progress once there's a proof of concept AI that kills many people or causes great property damage.
Re: Keep your AI claims in check
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a reminder. It's a casual threat. And minor nit - this has nothing to do with antitrust. If you were going to highlight their mission, at least show the deceptive practices part.
In this case they aren't mutually exclusive. A government agency reminding the public it has legal authority to regulate is always threatening.
It's the casual part that is inappropriate. The government should not casually threaten the citizens.