oof, big flaw there

Any information humanity has ever preserved in any format is worthless

It’s like this person only just discovered science, lol. Has this person never realized that bias is a thing? There’s a reason we learn to cite our sources, because people need the context of what bias is being shown. Entire civilizations have been erased by people who conquered them, do you really think they didn’t re-write the history of who these people are? Has this person never followed scientific advancement, where people test and validate that results can be reproduced?

Humans are absolutely gonna human. The author is right to realize that a single source holds a lot less factual accuracy than many sources, but it’s catastrophizing to call it worthless and it ignores how additional information can add to or detract from a particular claim- so long as we examine the biases present in the creation of said information resources.

This isn’t just about GPT, of note in the article, one example:

The AI assistant conducted a Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment on each scan. Researchers knew beforehand which mammograms had cancer but set up the AI to provide an incorrect answer for a subset of the scans. When the AI provided an incorrect result, researchers found inexperienced and moderately experienced radiologists dropped their cancer-detecting accuracy from around 80% to about 22%. Very experienced radiologists’ accuracy dropped from nearly 80% to 45%.

In this case, researchers manually spoiled the results of a non-generative AI designed to highlight areas of interest. Being presented with incorrect information reduced the accuracy of the radiologist. This kind of bias/issue is important to highlight and is of critical importance when we talk about when and how to ethically introduce any form of computerized assistance in healthcare.

ah yes, i forgot that this article was written specifically to address you and only you

It’s FUCKING OBVIOUS

What is obvious to you is not always obvious to others. There are already countless examples of AI being used to do things like sort through applicants for jobs, who gets audited for child protective services, and who can get a visa for a country.

But it’s also more insidious than that, because the far reaching implications of this bias often cannot be predicted. For example, excluding all gender data from training ended up making sexism worse in this real world example of financial lending assisted by AI and the same was true for apple’s credit card and we even have full-blown articles showing how the removal of data can actually reinforce bias indicating that it’s not just what material is used to train the model but what data is not used or explicitly removed.

This is so much more complicated than “this is obvious” and there’s a lot of signs pointing towards the need for regulation around AI and ML models being used in places it really matters, such as decision making, until we understand it a lot better.

I think she wants you to just rack up a bunch of medical debt so she can cancel it, gotta think in loopholes like the big companies

Fantastic article highlighting the issue. Thanks!

This really does not surprise me one bit. But also, nobody using these tools really cares. It reduces the amount of applications they need to review, which is often all they care about. Can’t wait for the inevitable company to pop up which will do the AI equivalent of SEO stacking your resume so you can get a job.

Also, perhaps more importantly, this is just going to undo fifty years of antiracism and antisexism work. The biggest problem with AI is that it’s trained on a bigoted system and when it’s used to gatekeep said system, it just creates additional inequality.

Wow, what a constructive and useful comment. Thank you for contributing 💜💜

Yup! I immediately sent this link to anyone who’s had to deal with the “throw a chatbot at it” management response

Insulting people isn’t nice. The only rule on this understand is to be(e) nice. This is not appropriate behavior for our instance. You didn’t need to insult someone to make your point. I’m giving you a 7 day ban to think things over.

I really doubt this is behind the push. Tech that wants people in the office in silicon valley already forced everyone back to the office.

So I’m not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you’ll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It’s possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it’s necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.

But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it’s important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.

That is super common in supreme court cases. They really like to explore the legality of each potential argument in a lot of depth.

A long shot in what way? That you think they’ll find in favor of trump?

Very approachable article for people who don’t have experience with the fediverse. Thanks!

It appears to have been lazy reporting. Didn’t happen

Biden has already made it clear he has no intention of packing the court, I cannot imagine for the life of me that this will change

I can’t even imagine how fucked up of a mental state that would leave her in. She’s going to regret this and hold herself responsible for this for the rest of her life. It’s tragic

Let me be clear: The ONLY site I have ever been banned from was reddit for posting ‘Punching nazis is a moral good’, and please tell me now if this is a violation here and I will just delete my account and leave.

Punching nazis is most definitely a moral good. We’ve outlined this (intolerance towards the intolerant) in our docs.