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

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 152 posts

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

#41

Post by GeorgeCurtis »

Bjartr wrote: post #31

> Imagine applying for a job, only to find out that an algorithm powered by artificial intelligence (AI) rejected your resume before a human even saw it The article says this like it's a new problem. Automated resume screening is a long established practice at this point. That it'll be some LLM doing the screening instead of a keyword matcher doesn't change much. Although, it could be argued that an LLM would better…

> It also influences hiring decisions, rental applications, loans, credit scoring, social media feeds, government services and even what news or information we see when we search online.

I think, more frighteningly, the potential for it to make decisions on insurance claims and medical care.

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

#42

Post by Gigachad »

codr7 wrote: post #40
Robotbeat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, then I guess they’ll agree to paying more for those services since they’ll cost more to deal with someone’s boutique Amistics.

If I was given the choice, I would without exception pay more for non-AI service.

Some businesses have done similar. Some banks in Australia announced they will be charging a fee for withdrawing cash at the counter rather than at ATMs, other businesses charge fees for receiving communications by letter rather than email.

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

#44

Post by SoftTalker »

userbinator wrote: post #33
SoftTalker wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans making the decision to use AI need to be responsible for what the AI does, in the way that the owner/operator of a car is responsible for what the car does.

"Humans" is the problem. There's one driver in a car, but likely far more than one human deciding to use AI, so who takes responsibility for it?

If there's more than one possiblity, then their boss. Or the boss's boss. Or the CEO, ultimately.

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

#46

Post by hedora »

Maybe people will finally realize that allowing companies to gather private information without permission is a bad idea, and should be banned. Such information is already used against everyone multiple times a day.

On the other hand, blocking training on published information doesn’t make sense: If you don’t want your stuff to be read, don’t publish it!

This tradeoff has basically nothing to do with recent advances in AI though.

Also, with the current performance trends in LLMs, we seem very close to being able to run models locally. That’ll blow up a lot of the most abusive business models in this space.

On a related note, if AI decreases the number of mistakes my doctor makes, that seems like a win to me.

If the AI then sold my medical file (or used it in some other revenue generating way), that’d be unethical and wrong.

Current health care systems already do that without permission and it’s legal. Fix that problem instead.

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

#47

Post by jkuli »

userbinator wrote: post #7
djoldman wrote: post #4

> Imagine applying for a job, only to find out that an algorithm powered by artificial intelligence (AI) rejected your resume before a human even saw it. Or imagine visiting a doctor where treatment options are chosen by a machine you can’t question. I wonder when/if the opposite will be as much of an article hook: "Imagine applying for a job, only to find out that a human rejected your resume before an algorithm pow…

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

[flagged]
Post reply on HN