Public Policy Implications of AI

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by maxerickson on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:36PM (#13142854)

The article doesn't really address dealing with "the AI said so" as a justification for action.

Like if we start using AI to do things like populate no fly lists.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by DonaldFisk on Friday December 09, 2016 @08:03PM (#13143325)

One of the advantages of GOFAI, and expert systems in particular, was that their reasoning process was a lot more transparent, and in many cases you could ask them to explain it. Much harder if all you have is dozens of arrays of connexion weights.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by gumernatorial on Friday December 09, 2016 @10:16PM (#13143815)

Perhaps this is more an exposé of human ability to generate rationalizations for chaotic biological workings of their brains, than it is a failing of neural nets to make rational decisions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by kd0amg on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:52PM (#13142946)

Or sentence convicts.

https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by yummyfajitas on Saturday December 10, 2016 @08:32AM (#13145566)

If you read ProPublica's R script rather than their anecdote-filled news article, you discover the algorithm is accurate (p < 0.001) and unbiased (bias tests had p > 0.05).

https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2016/propublica_is_lying....

Unfortunately an honest title/article "sentencing algorithm is accurate and eliminates racism" wouldn't be viable clickbait, so they decided to ignore their own conclusions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Public Policy Implications of AI by dTal on Sunday December 11, 2016 @04:08PM (#13153229)

Honestly, I'd click that. Although I'd probably read the HN comments first, as I would be skeptical.

[ Parent | on HN ]