this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2024
481 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59055 readers
3164 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The article is not about how the AI is responsible for the death. It's likely that the woman would have died in the counterfactual.

The question is not "how effective is AI"? The question is should life or death decisions be made by an electrified Oracle at Delphi. You must answer this question before "is AI effective" becomes relevant.

If somebody was adjudicating traffic court with Tarot cards, would you ask: well how accurate are the cards compared to a judge?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Your point is valid regardless but the article mentions nothing about AI. ("Algorithm" doesn't mean "AI".)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Decisions should be made by whomever or whatever is most effective. That's not even a debate. If the tarot cards were right more often than the judge, fire the judge and get me a deck. Because the judge is clearly ineffective.

You can't privilege an approach just because it sounds more reasonable. It also has to BE more reasonable. It's crazy to say "I'm happy being wrong because I'm more comfortable with the process"

The trick of course is to find fair ways to measure effectiveness accurately and make sure it's repeatable. That's a rabbit hole of challenges.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The judge can bear legal responsibility. It's a feedback loop - somebody should be responsible for failures. We live in a society. If that somebody is not the side causing failures, things will get bad.

With a deck of cards it should be decided, how the responsibility is distributed between the party replacing humans with it, company producing cards, those interpreting the results.