Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 383 posts

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#191

Post by clcaev »

robin_reala wrote: post #188

Remember that you can delete your Meta accounts and have nothing to do with them. It’s not hard to do.

> Remember that you can delete your Meta accounts and have nothing to do with them. It’s not hard to do.

This means deleting real-world social connections. Meta owns the interwoven communication hubs of many local communities.

Let me provide an example. My swim team coach uses WhatsApp for all communication, including frequent pool schedule changes. They have strongly resisted change, as it is too much work to get 50+ subscribers to move to an alternative platform. They are the only local choice; this team is where my friends swim. Sure, I could work tirelessly to convince everyone to switch. However, most of the members use WhatsApp for other communities (eg triathlon and open-water clubs). Introducing an alternative incrementally means each member has to manage N+1 apps, etc. Importantly, super nodes (coaches, multi-club parents) with the most connections offer the most resistance: things work for them, why should they change?

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#192

Post by wiseowise »

notsydonia wrote: post #163

It's also a huge danger as the system FB uses to tag and categorize photos is clearly flawed. example: Meta took a business page I ran that had over 150K followers offline because of a photo that violated their 'strict anti-pornography' etc etc policies. The picture was of a planet - Saturn - and it took weeks of the most god-awful to and fro with (mostly) bots to get them to revoke the ban - their argument was that…

Thank God you didn't use Uranus.

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#193

Post by lesuorac »

rglullis wrote: post #190
conartist6 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmmmhm, which means the humans now understand that they should be callous and cold. If they're not rubber stamping rejections all the time then the AI isn't doing anything useful by making a feed of easy-to-reject applications. The system will become evil even if it has humans in it because they have been given no power to resist the incentives

> humans now understand that they should be callous and cold Were humans working on health insurance claims previously known for being warm and tend to err on the side of the patient?

All you have to do is take an initial cost hit where you have multiple support staff review a case as a calibration phase and generate cohorts of say 3 reviews where 2 have the desired denial rate and 1 doesn't. Determine the performance of each cohort by how much in agreement they are and then rotate out whose in training over time and you'll achieve a target denial rate.

There will always be people who "try to do their best" and actually read the case and decide accordingly. But you can drown them out with malleable people who come to understand if they deny 100 cases today then they're getting a cash bonus for alignment (with the other guy mashing deny 100 times).

Technology solves technological problems. It does not solve societal ones.

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#194

Post by nelox »

notsydonia wrote: post #163

It's also a huge danger as the system FB uses to tag and categorize photos is clearly flawed. example: Meta took a business page I ran that had over 150K followers offline because of a photo that violated their 'strict anti-pornography' etc etc policies. The picture was of a planet - Saturn - and it took weeks of the most god-awful to and fro with (mostly) bots to get them to revoke the ban - their argument was that…

Venus, in her naked glory, I could understand at a stretch, but Saturn?

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#195

Post by ch_fr »

Be it opt-in or not, I don't like that Meta is comfortable enough to even suggest it. Even when putting AI out of the equation, this is still one more of Meta's repeated attempts at breaking out of mobile app encapsulation (see the Onavo VPN or localhost tracking).

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#196

Post by ch_fr »

ch_fr wrote: post #195

Be it opt-in or not, I don't like that Meta is comfortable enough to even suggest it. Even when putting AI out of the equation, this is still one more of Meta's repeated attempts at breaking out of mobile app encapsulation (see the Onavo VPN or localhost tracking).

Probably would have been a more fitting comment for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44399494

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#197

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

p_l wrote: post #175
southernplaces7 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reads completely ridiculous cases like the one you describe, and shakes their head at those who preach the notion of creating ever more thickets of AI "powered" bots as a prima facie interface for our social services, customer support and other institutional interaction needs. Idiocies like this are why AI should absolutely never (at least at any present level of technology) be an inescapable means of filtering h…

I worked on a project where one of the services was a model that decided whether to pay a medical bill. Before you start justified screams of horror, let me explain the simple honesty trick that ensured proper ethics, though I guess at cost of profit unacceptable to some corporations: The model could only decide between auto approving a repayment, or refer the bill to existing human staff. The entire idea was that th…

How hard would it be tweak that model so that it decides between auto-paying and sending it to a different bot that hallucinates reasons to deny the claim? Eventually some super smart MBA will propose this innovative AI-first strategy that will boost profits.

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#198

Post by xoxxala »

samtheprogram wrote: post #131
blub wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the thread on /r/europe that person smoked weed and lied about it on their immigration form.

I would love a source about the immigration form. That would at least make more sense. Weed is legal in half of the US. As a citizen, I find the story troubling. The tweets just saying “drug use” and then you hear it’s weed is ridiculous. Why wouldn’t they just state that they lied on their immigration form about drug use?

BBC has a video on the story. DHS says it was drug use not the meme.

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/c5y2l9nn7y1o

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#199

Post by rglullis »

lesuorac wrote: post #193
rglullis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> humans now understand that they should be callous and cold Were humans working on health insurance claims previously known for being warm and tend to err on the side of the patient?

All you have to do is take an initial cost hit where you have multiple support staff review a case as a calibration phase and generate cohorts of say 3 reviews where 2 have the desired denial rate and 1 doesn't. Determine the performance of each cohort by how much in agreement they are and then rotate out whose in training over time and you'll achieve a target denial rate. There will always be people who "try to do t…

I am not disagreeing, and I am not arguing for AI.

I am just saying that the perverse incentives already exist and that in this case AI-assisted evaluation (which defers to a human when uncertain) is not going to make it any better, but it is not going to make it any worse.

Re: Facebook is asking to use Meta AI on photos you haven’t yet shared

#200

Post by shakna »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #46
bigiain wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Somebody moved fast and broke things. We have no idea why they thought that was appropriate behaviour on production systems, it's completely against company policy." It's surprising(not) how that class of error always seems to fall on the side of Facebook grabbing more data without consent, and never on the side of accidentally increasing user privacy.

How would you know? If Facebook has a bug that accidentally increases user privacy, does The Verge write an article about it?

If the Verge hears, you'd probably get something like this [0].

[0] https://www.theverge.com/news/694246/google-android-pixel-wa...

Post reply on HN