I believe AI is going to kill us all if it is not eradicated and I have to spend a lot of time explaining that no, I don't mean it's going to become superintelligent https://fediscience.org/@ct_bergstrom/113028760435643985
-
@glyph @mcc What will happen, as others have pointed out, is that if the "AI" is trained to duplicate the decisions that are currently being made, any unconscious biases will become explicit. The AI will wind up with explicit weights that penalize people for having a name associated with the discriminated-against group, and that happens because it's trained to match the human decision makers as closely as possible. This kind of thing happens even when the developers try to prevent it, because they'll take out obvious, explicit bias but leave in the correlations because they can't find them all.
-
@not2b @glyph That's the beauty of "AI", though. It can't be inspected, because we hid the decisions inside this box made of numbers. You can't prove we denied people benefits based on a Hispanic name, because instead of putting a regexp that an auditor could inspect in a piece of written source code we embedded it in an inauditable bunch of numbers. You can't prove we plagiarized your novel, because we scrambled the evidence we plagiarized into this big noisy matrix. Etc
-
@mcc @not2b @glyph this may have been mentioned sorry, but it'll be interesting to see how they square these "AI" with GDPR's right to understand how an automated decision was made.
Maybe they just won't be used, or will somehow blag that "thing goes in, decision comes out" is sufficient explanation.
For those lucky enough to be protected by such laws, of course.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] a fun fact about gdpr is that you can just move your user data across continents and there's not really much teeth the law has on that? it's not against it (I'm sure not giving proper notice will get you in shit, but that's not my ass that's our ex administrator)
-
@ireneista @glyph @mcc @tehstu @not2b Sweden exempted the privately run website which publishes their entire population database including every resident’s address and which cars they own (incl. license plate)
Which, to be fair, there is a complaint about going on to the EU Data Protection Board right now, but like, there are many holes in the GDPR especially around government data
-
@puppygirlhornypost2 @tehstu @not2b @glyph @ireneista I thought the EU was introducing data residency laws for precisely this reason
-
@mcc @puppygirlhornypost2 @tehstu @not2b @glyph @ireneista you can only move an EU citizens’ personal data to a third country with an adequacy decision
The European Commission has so far recognised Andorra, Argentina, Canada (commercial organisations), Faroe Islands, Guernsey, Israel, Isle of Man, Japan, Jersey, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Switzerland , the United Kingdom under the GDPR and the LED, the United States (commercial organisations participating in the EU-US Data Privacy Framework) and Uruguay as providing adequate protection.
Note that every few years the ECJ overturns the recognition of the US and then the parliament & US government ink a very slightly tweaked but obviously noncompliant deal and the process repeats because sometimes people make a new law and then decide they don’t actually like the consequences of it :drgn_scream_angry:
-
@erincandescent @tehstu @glyph @mcc @not2b @puppygirlhornypost2 yeah, we have no specific knowledge of any particular violations but in our privacy work we see things that make it very obvious that violation is constant and ongoing
-
@erincandescent @tehstu @glyph @mcc @not2b @puppygirlhornypost2 but yes, as you say, these specific provisions and everybody's blatant non-compliance have been at the center of various treaty frameworks being invalidated
and then the politicians have to get involved and pinky swear not to do it again, which nobody actually believes
-
@ireneista @tehstu @glyph @mcc @not2b @puppygirlhornypost2 The problem is not violation of the treaty frameworks; it’s that the US will not restrict the surveilence activities of the NSA.
The treaties fundamentally do not comply with the requirements set forth in the GDPR and are hence invalid.
-
@erincandescent @tehstu @glyph @mcc @not2b @puppygirlhornypost2 yeah - they don't comply because the US hasn't made laws that would implement them, right? we're not lawyers, but that's been our understanding
-
@ireneista @tehstu @glyph @mcc @not2b @puppygirlhornypost2 If the treaty bound the US wrt mass surveilence and so on, it would be fine; intergovernmental treaties generally hold power at least as strong as national law.
But it doesn’t, so there is no adequacy.