Slashdot Mirror
It's Getting Hard To Know What is Automated and What Isn't (axios.com)
It's increasingly becoming a challenge to know when -- and if -- AI is at play in things we come across in our daily lives. From a report: Applicants usually don't know when a startup has used artificial intelligence to triage their resume. When Big Tech deploys AI to tweak a social feed and maximize scrolling time, users often can't tell, either. The same goes when the government relies on AI to dole out benefits -- citizens have little say in the matter. What's happening: As companies and the government take up AI at a delirious pace, it's increasingly difficult to know what they're automating -- or hold them accountable when they make mistakes. If something goes wrong, those harmed have had no chance to vet their own fate. Why it matters: AI tasked with critical choices can be deployed rapidly, with little supervision -- and it can fall dangerously short. The big picture: Researchers and companies are subject to no fixed rules or even specific professional guidelines regarding AI. Hence, companies have tripped up but suffered little more than a short-lived PR fuss.
And what about the AI?
Why is it the rich and powerful can come up with more crap to minimize and degrade the value of the middle class and poor? And also do it with impunity! Who the hell makes up this garbage?
"Applicants usually don't know when a startup has used artificial intelligence to triage their resume." - The fuck is "triage a resume" you mean search for keywords? This is moronic. That is NOT AI.
You aren't very bright, are you?
AI, without the I.
AI tasked with critical choices can be deployed rapidly, with little supervision -- and it can fall dangerously short.
yeah let's pretend that humans don't make terrible decisions already
What is Automated and What Isn't ?
So when you're being disadvantaged by another human in a similar situation, is there a way to hold them accountable ?
I suspect there will be 2 phases of AI growth. The first phase will be giving "bots" the ability do relatively complex but practical tasks, and the 2nd phase will be creating systems that partition and track each intelligence step so that they use divide-and-conquer of both AI-creating staff, and of processes (modules). This will make it easier to understand how a bot acts the way it does, and to tune it.
AI will grow regimented and standardized, along the lines of MVC and similar development partition techniques. There may be pattern-detection sub-engines, rule-based sub-engines, logic-based sub-engines, physics-modelling-based sub-engines, etc.
The second regimented kind may be behind the first type, being say 5 to 10 years behind in ability, but both will improve over time.
Table-ized A.I.
I know folks over 40 who hide their age because they won't get interviews if the company realizes they're over 40.
,etc.
AI and big data have the potential to break that. There's still markers left over from the places you worked, how long, the types of apps you've worked on
You used to see this with black neighborhoods unable to get mortgages because of their zip code. When you put numbers into a database without regard to what comes out you can end up with crap like this.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Just ask the thousands of foreclosure victims from 2009/2010 who were foreclosed and evicted, despite not even being behind on their mortgages.
Not only were the foreclosure processes at the banks automated, but so were the eviction and auction proceedings with the state courts. There were never any human eyes checking things to make sure a foreclosure was legit.
I spent $10K on attorney fees stopping the foreclosure on my house in 2010, which was PAID FOR FREE AND CLEAR, for 4 MONTHS. The bank's automated system detected I had not made a payment in 4 months and initiated foreclosure proceedings to recover ZERO dollars on a PAID OFF loan. The court was all too happy to go along with it.
Whether by AI or any means, why is it not OK that a business owner wants to reduce costs and maximize profits? Paul Bunyan was a mythical hero that was made up when steam engines became popular and people worried that they would lose their precious jobs. It's not really much different now. Basically Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos will own everything and the rest of you slobs will be on welfare. Welcome to the brave new world!
What's more probable, that the fools that programmed these HR bots made them to regard skill and experience as being highly valuable or that they are simply going to discard everyone that doesn't meet the "desired" qualifications? HR was shitty to start with but this is absolute trash.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Likely would have to try this first before analyzing what the that even means
I agree with a paper I read from some IT heavyweights recently, which suggested that in but a few short years there will be three IT functions remaining:
1. Programmer/developer (writing AI)
2. Project managers/designers (idea men and overseers)
3. Low-level "help desk" roles to manage what hasn't gone to "cloud"
I have no doubt this is true from my own observations after 22 years in IT. I've noticed that once things go the "cloud" within an organization, job loss follows pretty swiftly. This has affected me twice in the last 4 years. I'm doing my best to learn even more programming than I already know to stay fresh and needed. At the moment, I am automating some of the work flow in my current job with PowerShell, but not the real "needed" stuff. Some stuff requires actual "human relationships" and many IT planners, particularly in Silicon Valley, forget this. Not everything should be automated, even if it could be. When you take out the human element in everything, you will rue the day. When this happens, I may very well get out of IT and pursue something else.
>> Researchers and companies are subject to no fixed rules or even specific professional guidelines regarding AI. Hence, companies have tripped up but suffered little more than a short-lived PR fuss.
This looks like it's teeing up to make the case for government regulation, which is really stupid. AI is a leading edge technology, so all the experts who would even understand the parameters involved in implementing "fixed rules" regarding AI are the ones inventing the thing to begin with. All the government would do if charged with making "fixed rules" is stifle innovation to ensure the government's flavor of this technology is stronger than that available to the general public.
If it worked, its not automated. If it didn't work, maybe its automated. Automating is still only works well on fixed function tasks and humans are fallible.
It's not "AI" that needs to be regulated or blamed for these issues.
"AI" is becoming the whipping point, the man, the fall guy for shady actions enacted by corps and employees who are (last I checked) still accountable to regulations and laws enforcing fairness and transparency.
If they're hiding behind AI for bizarre outcomes that are obviously against regulations then that's still - ILLEGAL. Don't blame the AI - take the corp to court for implementing the AI in that way in the same way Wells Fargo was held accountable for their human agents making fake accounts.
For social media and "fake news" this gets a little trickier but the solution is still the same - hold the companies like Facebook and Google accountable for what they post - be it ads or promotional stories that they're paid for.
The question is just as important as the response. These "ethics" questions are just noise hiding the fact that most people creating these tools are hard pressed for time and resources. The final tool ends up being shipped with basic logic and bugs.
Besides, the author needs to lookup the meaning of the terms and subject prior to writing articles. The story has enough cringe factor that it rejects reality.
That's okay, I used AI to create my resume.
The 'real danger' is actually the marketing departments that shill this garbage, making people believe it's 'magic' and can actually THINK, i.e. orders of magnitude better than it actually is. Meanwhile nobody not even the programmers really understand why it's spitting out the 'results' it does and therefore how can you trust it at all? I'll be glad when this fad comes to an end (again).
in an interview, but only if you get the interview in the first place. As for them catching it before the interview, if you're just glancing at a resume it's easy enough to miss.
The thing about AI and data automation is that it makes it practical to catch things that time pressed humans miss. These little efficiency boosts add up with mega corporations resulting in tens of millions of dollars in savings. On the downside those savings usually come at the cost of longer hours and harder work for anyone who works for a living.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... if AI worked to screen resumes, management would stop asking everyone to convince their friends to come interview.
But I am the guy who makes SURE they know how old I am, so that I don't have to work with bigots, and they know not to pull their brogrammer shit on me.
man i wish i ws as blind as all the non-techies out there.
i'd bet most people on here, like me, notice when the algorithms are tweaked.
knowing how ugly things really are behind the scenes is not fun.
(in my pet war on AI nomenclature i decree that AI stands for Alogrithmic Intelligence.)
There is no AI at this time (at least none that deserved the name), so "never" is the correct answer. Now, if you are talking about dumb, non-intelligent automation and statistical classification, that is something else...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.