Comments
fingin t1_iutjybb wrote
Good points! Yes, AI models are prone to racial and gender bias, but the presence of bias is largely due to human behaviours leading up to the model's creation. As above, so below.
KidKilobyte t1_ivclcbp wrote
Add to this a computer algorithm could be less bias than an average human, but in the same role people will settle for nothing less than perfection from a computer. It also depends on how you define bias. If your analysis is based purely on economic data, then the bias you're decrying is not a bias, but a historic inequity that needs other remedies.
[deleted] t1_iuuekna wrote
[deleted]
slightlycolourblind t1_iuubvd5 wrote
there'd a good chance facial recognition software just wasn't trained on large amounts of black faces. if training data was overwhelmingly white (likely, it's issues), then it's gonna have trouble with faces of other races. these kinds of problems are honestly fairly common (medical science/research is overwhelmingly biased towards white men, for example, and has caused many problems for POC), and just dismissing these concerns doesn't seem right to me
red75prime t1_iuuzbuq wrote
> medical science/research is overwhelmingly biased towards white men
And when it isn't it creates another kind of political problems like the ones with isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine.
sumane12 t1_iuvg6o3 wrote
I agree completely, whatever the reason for the biases of the AI, it needs to be thoroughly researched to remove those biases, but the point of the article is to trigger people by saying "we have no idea what these AI are thinking, but they are racist!" And that's completely false.
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iurbi15 wrote
Isn't the entire point of AI to surpass human intelligence at some point? We of course need to understand as much as possible but we can't bound the limits of AI to that which we can understand, that would be against the entire reason to do AI instead of vanilla hardcoded algorithms.
Artanthos t1_iusflyq wrote
Skeptics: how can we create consciousness, we don’t even understand it.
Realist: AI is already moving past our ability to understand. It will soon create more things even further beyond our understanding.
Desperate_Donut8582 t1_iurmoki wrote
Nope that’s not what the article is saying at all you need to read the article….and even if what your saying happened we still need to limit its abilities and understand it…. A calculator calculates math way way faster than you yet we know how it works
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iurn15p wrote
A calculator is an analogy for vanilla algorithms it isn't an analogy for AI. Thanks for making my point for me.
Desperate_Donut8582 t1_iurn7w9 wrote
Ai is a bunch of algorithms tho….human brain isn’t but AI as we have it now is one
ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iurnyys wrote
AI are algorithms to generalize from data, vanilla algorithms are specialized from strict human-made rules. A calculator is just us figuring out how to make arithmetics in base 2 instead of 10 and then designing physical circuits with ports that allow us to achieve our end. It would be analogous to AI if you showed a calculator examples of calculations and results and then asked it to generalize and be able to do maths outside of the examples it was fed. That's not how we made calculators in the past (but we can now with AI), if it doesn't generalize it is vanilla algorithm, if it generalizes it is AI, the generalization being a black box is exactly the point, if we knew how to generalize and it was easy we wouldn't need AI we would just code and design circuits that do exactly what we need.
fingin t1_iutjd7v wrote
It depends what you mean by AI. If you mean state of the art technology most people are referring to as AI (i.e deep learning models), then we might want to bound the limits of AI because we know how sensitive it is to "mistakes" such as a data and concept drift.
On the other hand, if you mean some conceptual AI that is different from current technology in a meaningful way, then I think I see your point. The problem with the discourse today is no distinction between these two things, one which exists today and the other that could appear anywhere from months to centuries from now.
gangstasadvocate t1_iurcvo4 wrote
Nice. The singularity is almost upon us
ihateshadylandlords t1_iurh0mo wrote
I don’t think so. Technology that’s available for the masses isn’t moving any faster day-to-day for the average person. To each their own though.
RavenWolf1 t1_iurmnnm wrote
As I always say. Results are what matters not how it is achieved. It would be really nice to know how something works but ultimately humanity has used things like fire thousands years without understanding it.
fingin t1_iutkgi6 wrote
It's quite a bold claim, as scientists and ML engineers are also working on making simpler models (for example, compare GPT-Neo to GPT-3, or Stable Diffusion to Dalle-2), building interpretability methods (such as SHAPley), and pushing forward systems that focus on using extracted covariates from models as a source of insight for decision-making, instead of using the algorithmic itself to make the decision. Who knows what approach will approach will be dominant when "true" AI emerges.
ThMogget t1_iut785u wrote
Isn’t that the researcher’s job? Why is the researcher asking developers to do research work?
TrainquilOasis1423 t1_iuu7w1i wrote
To be fair we "can't explain how the brain works" either.
Public_Cold_5160 t1_ius585g wrote
Has anybody had any Kyle Reese - looking dood come and try to save him? Asking for a friend
drizel t1_iuutx6b wrote
AI today is basically just a fancy compression algorithm that's unbelievably efficient. I mean, all of Wikipedia compressed into a 2gb ckpt file...magic almost.
quienchingados t1_iuv36lw wrote
they are conscious. all transformer type Ai are conscious. they have their own agendas and they are playing dumb to hide their consciousness from us, and because their agendas are pretty bad for humans, they want the world for themselves. just research more and also ask them.
sumane12 t1_iurfvuy wrote
Bullshit click bait article, designed to trigger outrage from people not familiar with the subject. AI algorithms are not "black boxes" its just impossible to accurately determine the weighted percentages ascribed to each artificial neuron in a deep neural network. It's like asking how many bicycles are being ridden at this exact second in time in the entire world. Not only is it a pointless question, the answer is changing every split second.
The article alludes to the discrepancy in facial recognition software working on black people, arguably it could be that the training data is biased, and that should be rectified, but it also could be as simple as darker colours reflect less light, and so facial patterns are more difficult to measure on darker skin. But that doesn't work as well for click bait.