• hanke@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago
    1. You can’t have unbiased AI without unbiased training data.
    2. You can’t have unbiased training data without unbiased humans.
    3. unbiased humans don’t exist.
    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      If you want AI agents that benefit humanity, you need biased training data and or a bias inducing training process. E.g. an objective like “Improve humanity in an ethical manner” (don’t pin me down on that, just a simple example).

      For example, even choosing a real environment over a tailored simulated one is already a bias in training data, even though you want to deploy the AI agent in a real setting. That’s what you want. Bias can be beneficial. Also if we think about ethical reasoning. An AI agent won’t know what ethics are and which are commonly preferred, if you don’t introduce such a bias.

    • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      show your work. 1 especially seems suspect. Especially since many AIs are not trained on content like you are imagining, but rather trains itself through experimentation and adversarial networks.

        • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Yes, and? If you write a bad fitness function, you get an AI that doesn’t do what you want. You’re just saying, human-written software can have bugs.

          • xthexder@l.sw0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 minutes ago

            You’re just saying, human-written software can have bugs.

            That’s pretty much exactly the point they’re making. Humans create the training data. Humans aren’t perfect, and therefore the AI training data cannot be perfect. The AI will always make mistakes and have biases as long as it’s being trained on human data.

  • amzd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 hours ago

    It’s weird to hold the belief that AI won’t oppress us while showing it that it’s fine to oppress animals as long as you’re smarter

  • Skullgrid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Every sci fi work : oh no, the technology is bad

    Reality : the assholes using the tool are making it do bad things

  • ssillyssadass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I do think that the best government would be one run by AI.

    I do not think the AIs we currently have could run a government, though.

  • OpenStars@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 hours ago

    That’s just what they want us to think! /s 😜

    Wait a minute… oh no no no no no no, that is what they want to sell us us to think! (as they game the system and control the AI, no /s no cap!)

    img

  • Fuzzy_Dunlop@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Absolutely.

    Every time I hear someone question the safety of self-driving cars, I know they’ve never been to Philadelphia or NJ.

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I mean, the US really isn’t a good example for road safety. Even Germany got better drivers, and we like to drive 140-200 kmh. It’s a matter of good education, standards and regulations (as always).

      In the end self-driving public transport is the way the future of mobility should primarily be imho. Self-driving cars… as long as there always is a steering wheel in case of unexpected circumstances or to move around backyards and stuff it’ll probably me fine. Just don’t throw technical solutions at cultural problems and expect them to be fixed.

      • Zacryon@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I mean, the US really isn’t a good example for road safety. Even Germany got better drivers, and we like to drive 140-200 kmh. It’s a matter of good education, standards and regulations (as always).

        I didn’t want to believe it as well, but it seems to be factually correct, as per this wonderful Wikipedia list.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 hours ago

          They’re so well regulated that they can safely drive on roads with no speed limit, whereas the US for example has pretty low limits and multiple times the fatal crashes (proportionally to population)

          • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 minutes ago

            This. Of course it would be even better with limits on the Autobahn, and in fact a majority of people are in favour of such a change (especially if the limit is at 130-140). Our governments are in the pocket of the car industry though, politicians act as if our whole freedom is endangered talking about it (now where do we know that from? 🙃). Things can always be better, but A.I. definitely doesn’t improve an absolutely shitty mobility system like the US has (which is basically nothing but cars). If anything it will make shit even more… off the rails. 😏

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I mean TBF, they don’t trust the average person in New Jersey to handle a petrol pump—so much so that it’s legally prohibited.

      I’m not at all surprised that they shouldn’t be trusted with the vehicle itself, given that

  • DavidGarcia@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    12 hours ago

    AI judges make a lot of sense, that way everyone is treated equally, because eveey judge thinks literally the same way. No corrupt judges, no change in political bias between judges, no more lenient or strict judges that arbitrary decide your fate. How you decide what AI model is your judge is a whole new can of worms, but it definitely has lots of upsides.

    • qaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Perhaps when we have real AGI, but I wouldn’t want an LLM to decide someone’s fate.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        You have been found guilty of jaywalking. I hearby sentence you to 90 days of community service as unicorn titty sprinkles from Valhalla. May Chester have mercy on your handkerchief.

        • JudgeGPT, probably
        • qaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          You could get away with murder if your lawyer talked the charges out of it’s context token limit.

    • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      And how will this be done? A proper legal system needs impartiality, which an AI still varies as much or more than a human judge. Not to mention, the way it’s trained, the training data itself, if there are updates to it or not, how much it thinks, how it orders juries and parties, etc.

      If, in theory, we have a perfect AI judge model, how should it be hosted? Self host it? Would be pretty expensive if it needs to be able to keep up. It would have to be re-trained to recognise new legislation or understand removals or amendments of laws. The security of it? If it needs to be swapped out often, it would need internet access to update itself, but that produces risk for cyber attacks, so maybe done through an intranet instead?

      This requires a lot of funding, infrastructural changes and tons of maintenance in the best case scenario where the model is perfect and already developed. There would be millions, or ideally, billions in funding to produce anything remotely of quality.

      All I see are downsides.