Makes sense, right?🤦♂️
Dunno, let’s ask prof. Turley how much would he say a hallucinated-up charge of sexual misconduct against him is worth in damages maybe?
Or ask the families falsely accused by AI of defrauding the Dutch state on welfare how much money (not to mention time and emotional harm) they lost because of these accusations?
AI harms are already meaningful and very, very real.
or how about an entire database, growing every day!
There is a good report by Lighthouse, a Dutch media collective, about the families falsely accused by their state. There’s a high number of similar cases like the one of Prof. Torley’s, and such ‘false positives’ will always happen as they are inherent to such analyses.
The point for me here is that this guy from Microsoft likely knows that (or, in case he doesn’t, there are certainly a lot of experts at MS who know it as we can reasonably assume). What I don’t understand is that executives get often away with such statements, journalists rarely raise the issue of biases these models have. I feel that is not understood by the masses, and companies and governments exploit that use it against the people.
there are certainly a lot of experts at MS who know it as we can reasonably assume
Well they did fire their whole ethics and society team within their AI branch. So…
journalists rarely raise the issue of biases these models have. I feel that is not understood by the masses, and companies and governments exploit that use it against the people.
This is very true. For what it’s worth I wrote a bunch about AI for a somewhat mainstream Polish news portal. And I do focus on these issues:
- https://oko.press/chatgpt-cala-prawda-o-wielkich-modelach-jezykowych
- https://oko.press/sztuczna-inteligencja-open-ai
But there is absolutely a lot of just press-release copy-pasting and fueling the hype out there.
Thanks for this. As for my side, I’m afraid my Polish has too much potential to read this 😁 but it’s great that such initiatives exist. We defintitely needed more of them. But maybe I should stop complaining and start my own small blog together with a couple of peers as we have been discussing for some time 😇
I think that’s a swell idea. The more actual people (as opposed to corporations their PR departments) engaged in the debate, the better.
“Some of you may die, but it’s a risk I’m willing to take.”
Basically “Let us use it to become too big to fail (bigger than what we already are). Then we’ll dictate what you can regulate.”
@gloating_swann wtf, what would that meaningful harm even mean?!? having someone die because of it? starting meaningless protests over fake news? civil wars? rigging entire democracies altogether? where the hell would the harm start being meaningful in the first place?
“The first time we started requiring driver’s licenses, it was after many dozens of people died in car accidents, right?” Schwarz said. “And that was the right thing,” because “if you would’ve required driver’s licenses when there were the first two cars on the road,” then “we would have completely screwed up that regulation.”
What kind of fucked up example even is that? Back then you could only be hit by a car if you walked towards it. Nowadays the fastest car can go even 300-500 km/h - faster than a plane taking off. You sure do not need regulation when there’s no risk associated with something, but in a world where entire democracies are affected and autocrats and dictator wannabes are overly happy even with those conventional methods already on the market, there’s already a high risk of stuff going awry.
@gloating_swann hahahahahahah
Hell no. Fuck you MS.
