4
Australia will impose mandatory safety rules on AI. Are we focused on the right risks? (not a weird pdoom cultist) (theconversation.com)
submitted 1 day ago by to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Unaccountable, unfair, poorly managed deployments of such everyday AI systems have the potential to cause enormous harm.

We’ve seen Robodebt harm hundreds of thousands of Australians. Sexist AI-enabled job recruitment tools, AI-enabled stadium security systems that let a gun into the Melbourne Cricket Ground, racist policing algorithms, and AI meal-planners that recommend poisonous recipes are just a few among thousands of examples of everyday AI harms and risks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 18 hours ago (2 children)

I think you're mixing up automated decision making with AI.

Everything these days is branded as 'AI' as a marketing gimmick, even if there's no real intelligence behind it.

So if you want human oversight over everything, everywhere, all the time, then no, the latest guidelines don't help in that regard.

But to dismiss all addressed concerns as

stupid nerd rapture critihype stuff.

Is to be willfully ignorant, and not constructive.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 child)

    It's not me, you're arguing with someone with a PhD in the area lol. The conversation only accepts articles from faculty or active PhD students.

    You're also strawmanning the author's position, but if you're one of the P(doom) dorks you should be all about steelmanning.

    There is no intelligence behind language models. They don't even have statefulness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 16 hours ago

    This is the internet,I don't care who wrote it, I only judge arguments by their soundness.

    And even then, my issue isn't with their arguments, which I haven't addressed (I don't know why you think I strawman-ed them), it's that they don't have one.

    At best, they're saying that the latest AI guidelines don't cover risks the government previously identified and already took action on, pending review.

    How does that contribute to the narrative that the new guidelines are incorrectly focused?

    It smells of the Chewbacca's defense, unless you can enlighten me with a better reading.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent