Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected • Hacker News Board

Post by tomhow » Tue, May 13, 2025, 1:32 PM UTC

jkuli wrote: post #47

userbinator wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans can be held accountable. Machines can't. AI dilutes responsibility.

[flagged]

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post by int_19h » Thu, May 15, 2025, 3:36 AM UTC

beloch wrote: post #82

>* "AI decision making also needs to be more transparent. Whether it’s automated hiring, healthcare or financial services, AI should be understandable, accountable and open to scrutiny." 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 hu…

You don't need to look at the code (of LLM or otherwise) to determine if it has racial biases. You feed it a test suite of cases where literally the only variable is race, and observe the results - statistically, in aggregate. It's much easier to do with an LLM than it is with a human, too, because with an LLM, each individual interaction is separate from all others.

Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected

Re: Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected

Re: Avoiding AI is hard – but our freedom to opt out must be protected