51–60 of 115 posts
Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?
Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?
I see what you mean but… think of a conventional security issue around an AI like you would a chemical spill. Even though the failure may have been something boring like a bad seal, we could still call it a “hazardous chemical incident” or such.
AI didn't get accidentally or wrongfully or damagingly applied to anyone. The thing that leaked was not AI.
So it's like having hazardous chemicals around, but the bad seal wasn't on a container that had hazardous chemicals in it.
Consider this incident:
https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/73/#r1325
>Description: Through a crowdsourcing social media campaign in 2016, several journalists and researchers demonstrated that augmented reality locations in the popular smartphone game Pokemon Go were more likely to be in white neighborhoods.
>Alleged: Niantic Labs developed and deployed an AI system, which harmed non-white neighborhoods and communities of color.
Crowd-sourcing is not "AI". And the linked articles are things like Nintendo redesigning the pokemon Jynx to not look so much like a racial charicature.
It's hard to see the value of this sort of database if the indexed items are so unreliable. How can I trust any conclusions I might draw unless I go through item-by-item to verify them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this site needs a clear definition of what is an AI upfront. Good luck with that.
Their minimum standard for inclusion appears to be any collection of if-statements.
Bit of a stretch to label an organisations shitty website security an AI incident just because it's a portal to the AI chatbot. I guess aviation disasters should now include passengers privacy incidents from hacked booking websites?
(I am from the org behind the Incident Database) I agree about it being a stretch, but we err towards indexing boundary cases. This one turns on whether you would consider the web application as being part of ChatGPT or not. In aviation, there are many systems that are part of safely flying from point to point that are not part of the plane itself. The control tower, the runway markings, and the processes built aroun…
But you shouldn't say that and also say "ChatGPT is an AI" at the same time. Those are two slightly but importantly different definitions of "ChatGPT".
Looking at your glossary here, the definition of "AI incident" should probably be adjusted, and in its current form it should not be taken too literally. Because if a server fell over on someone, and that server was hosting an AI, that would technically fit your definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genetically Modified Organisms? I was under the impression these were very safe. Can you change my mind?
Sorry for the subtle sarcasm, they are safe and that's exactly my point. 20 years ago everyone was scared of GMOs and begging for regulation. Many european nations banned them in response. Other places insisted on labeling them so consumers could avoid the danger. We now know that they are safe and these efforts were counterproductive.
Do we do things like this for other technology or for other software? Why the huge intense fear as soon as someone puts a label 'AI' on a piece of software?
Yes, we do. It’s AI accelerationists that are the ones demanding special treatment of being able to deploy potentially dangerous technology without any regulations and without doing any work to verify and demonstrate it is safe.
This is interesting, but the presence of so many incidents that ultimately have nothing to do with AI is disappointing. Consider this incident: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/73/#r1325 >Description: Through a crowdsourcing social media campaign in 2016, several journalists and researchers demonstrated that augmented reality locations in the popular smartphone game Pokemon Go were more likely to be in white neighbor…
If I recall rightly the Pokémon Go locations were derived in part from an earlier (and far better) game called Ingress. Players could submit candidate locations, but it's possible that this was mostly ignored, and/or some form of AI was used to select or filter those candidates. It's also possible that Ingress had a racial bias in its userbase.