Ich habe ihn noch Ende April an dieser Verkehrsinsel mit seinem Stand gesehen. Sonniger Tag und ein Kumpel und er saßen da und schienen einfach nur den Tag zu genießen. Ich bin schockiert
I think with a human operator, we can be proactive. A person can be informed of bias, learn to recognize it, and even attempt to compensate for their own.
I think you're being very optimistic here. I hope very much that you'd be right about the humans. I have a feeling that a lot of these type of decisions are also resulting from implicit biases in humans that these humans themselves might not even recognize or acknowledge. Few sexists or racists will admit to being racists or sexists.
I agree about your point about the "computer says no" issue. That's also addressed in the video and fits well into her wider point that large parts of the population not understanding how so-called AI works is a huge problem.
That's why I said
So as long as the training data is well selected for your problem...
It's clear that in the training data for LLMs, 4chan, reddit, etc. are over-represented, so that explains why chatgpt might be more awful than an average person. Having an LLM decide on, e.g., college admission would be like having a Twitter poll to decide on who should be its next CEO. Like that's obviously stupid, nobody would ever do that, right?
The problem is that for the college admission example, the models were trained on previous admissions, taken by college employees , and these models are still biased.
Loads of good points in that video, thanks for posting. The only argument I don't really agree with is about bias. She's implying here that a human decision maker would be less biased than the AI model. I'm not convinced by that because the training data is just a statistical record of human bias. So as long as the training data is well selected for your problem, it should be a good predictior for the likelihood of bias in your human decision maker.
If you're an EU citizen, you can sign this petition for an EU wealth tax https://eci.ec.europa.eu/038/public/#/screen/home
Susanne Daubner ist meine Lieblingstageschausprecherin. Ich kenn sie nur aus der Tagesschau, aber ich glaube, die ist voll lässig.
Was radikal bedeutet ist natürlich sehr subjektiv. Terrorismus wie der der RAF erfüllt natürlich diese Definition, ist aber nicht der Maßstab, den ich vor Augen hatte. Ich finde es schon radikal, das LG bei den Verkehrblockaden ihr Leben auf Spiel setzen, riskieren, in Präventivhaft genommen zu werden (Bayern wieder mal!), oder sogar zu Gefängnisstrafen verurteilt zu werden.
Ich meine, dass das vernünftige, konstruktive, etwas prosaische Vorschläge sind, die, wie du richtig sagst nicht weit genug führen. Das klingt für mich eher nach Parlamentsausschuss als nach APO. Diesen Disconnect zwischen Forderungen und Methodik finde ich Bemerkenswert.
- Jupp
- Jupp
- Kann nicht schaden.
Insgesamt halte ich die Ziele der LG für sehr moderat, was bemerkenswert ist in Anbetracht der Radikalität ihrer Methoden.