<html><head></head><body>I definitely was not proposing mandatory buy in. Am very concerned about<br>the black box aspect of the technology. It seems to often serve the purpose of<br>maintaining current inequities under the guise of mathematical impartiality.<br><br>I am extremely skeptical about systems that decide simply from mining data<br>sets without clear understanding. This seems to be the goal everyone is <br>aiming at.<br><br>And again adding self selection will only skew the training data more.<br><br>For example, we have facial recognition that works great if you are<br>a white or Asian male.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On December 27, 2019 9:45:47 AM EST, Thomas Delrue <thomas@epistulae.net> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">I think I understand what you're saying but that leads us to a situation<br>where you are coerced to be strip-searched for every piece of data you<br>have just to prevent the situation of "some computer says no", in other<br>words: if you don't participate, we assume the worst. This is better<br>known as bullying.<br><br>The more I hear about this, the more I am driven towards the conclusion<br>that AI (ethical or not) has got nothing to do with technology but more<br>and more with legal liability and with control...<br>It's an externalizing of blame into some oracle that no-one but a<br>handful of priests understands. Yet have no doubt about it: these models<br>are created and tweaked, just like anything else, to give the result<br>that is most desirable; and once achieved, they are locked in. From then<br>on, you can tell the entire world: "look, we don't know what's going on<br>inside the black box and it's too complicated for you to torture your<br>little brain about it, so just trust us when we say you should trust The<br>All Knowing Algorithm and sing the following incantation with me...".<br>Does that sound familiar to anyone?<br><br>Mandatory participation in technology just to prevent a people-problem<br>(because this isn't a tech problem, this is a people problem) is not<br>much different from mandatory participation in self-criticism, as is<br>practiced in some unsavory places in the world.<br>Based on how this data will be used, and we've slid down that slippery<br>slope time and time again, this is not in any way different from<br>self-criticism because this will be used to deny things, not to grant<br>things: give us your data, so we may tell you 'no' in a myriad of ways...<br><br>On 12/27/19 07:57, R R Brooks wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">Opting out is likely to add additionally biases into the data, since I<br>imagine<br>underrepresented groups being more likely to opt out. Lack of<br>representation<br>is already leading to blacks and women getting substandard medical care<br>in USA.<br><br>Consider the ethical dimensions that adds.<br><br><br><br>On December 27, 2019 6:36:22 AM EST, carlo von lynX<br><lynX@time.to.get.psyced.org> wrote:<br><br> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 03:13:27PM -0600, Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes wrote:<br><br> Anonymity doesn’t protect “Particular Social Groups” and<br> aggregate anonymous data analysis and mining is the basis for<br> discrimination of entire segments of the population! Like zip<br> code discrimination. Food deserts. Etc.<br><br><br> True, so the total unavailability of private and personal data for<br> centralized analysis wouldn't even be enough as we still have to<br> work through the dangers of public data. But radical privacy sounds<br> to me like the most important starting point.<br><br> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:05 PM John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:<br><br> "Ethical" is a marketing, manipulative term, applied to exploitive,<br> deceptive initiatives.<br><br><br> I can very well imagine that the marketing individuals introducing<br> the word into their corporate discourse may all be well-intentioned.<br> The problem happens beyond their immediate understanding as corporate<br> structures acting within the capitalist framework cannot effectively<br> act ethically unless all of their costumers are extremily aware,<br> caring and able to check the effective application of ethical values -<br> and putting such values before their own individual interest.<br><br> In the era of individualism this just isn't happening, therefore any<br> company trying to make things ethical will fall into competitive<br> disadvantage against those who don't.<br><br> So even if there is a genuine attempt of a company leadership to go<br> ethical, it must be stopped ASAP to stop losing market share. So the<br> leadership will be replaced if it doesn't stop the ethical madness<br> on time.<br><br> In the capitalist system, the only ethical force lies in legislation,<br> government and jurisdiction. The market is structurally unable to<br> ever act ethically by itself.<br><br><br>-- <br>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.<br><br></blockquote></pre></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.</body></html>