5 ms·

> I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" eve

by Padding 12y ago

> I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords. Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again. A world where for everything that goes wrong, there'll always be a clear way to fix it and some clearly identifiable someone liable for the mistake. A world where being handsome is no more an advantage than having blue as your favorite color. Etc. Maybe it's not perfect, but it would most certainly take away power from people that don't deserve it. I can see why the "powers that be" would try to convince us that this is "dystopian".

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deong 12y ago
Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to leverage their existing advantages over the rest of us. And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations than we are of understanding those of other humans today.
- your_ai_manager 12y ago
  Algorithmic middle managers then?
  - eropple 12y ago
    That would be what Uber's dispatcher system is.
- Padding 12y ago
  > if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. > And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations (1) You're implying they/it'll have "motivations" in the first place. My whole argument was about a lack of motives. (2) There's a difference between understanding how a conclusion was reached and why it was reached. Example: You may not understand how your compiler decided that line X in your program is dead code, but you may still be capable of comprehending that it in fact is dead code.
  - ijk 12y ago
    > Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. The problem is that we don't have that transparency now, and aren't particularly likely to in the future. [1] Particularly for software-as-a-service: I can't audit Facebook's algorithms, despite their effects on what my friends and family see and discuss. And I can't easily audit the black box models used to make public policy, despite the value of transparency there, either. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-cathedral-of-computation/384300/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-ca...
    - deong 12y ago
      Also, it's far from clear that transparency into an AI's algorithms buys you very much. A mathematically inclined college freshman has no trouble understanding how to train a deep neural network today, but it's at the cutting edge of research to understand what function a trained network is actually computing. Scale that up in complexity a few orders of magnitude, and the thing may as well be a human. That is, you'll likely have broad understanding of its "motives", but we have that for humans today and it doesn't help that much. I understand Facebook wants to sell advertising, but that transparency isn't sufficient for understanding why a particular message is delivered to your followers while another isn't.
DennisP 12y ago
A lot of the advanced applications of algorithms are using deep neural networks. Unfortunately, it's notoriously difficult to figure out specifically why a neural network did what it did. You just end up with "because the algorithm said so, that's why."
lmm 12y ago
My experience with algorithmization so far is just the opposite. 20 years ago the bank manager would tell you "no, I'm not willing to offer you that mortgage because the house is overpriced / I called your manager and they said you were flaky / your hair was scruffy when you came in"; of course they could lie or refuse to give you a reason, but most of the time you got some explanation. Nowadays you just get "computer says no".
- johnlinvc 12y ago
  Looks like the bank need a random excuse generating algorithm.
imron 12y ago
> Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again Instead you'll hear "sorry, but it's the algorithm. I understand you need your paycheck, but there's nothing I can do and the programmer won't be available until the middle the of next week".

by Padding 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deong 12y ago

Until computers are as generally intelligent as humans, the algorithms aren't going to be the overlords -- they're going to have overlords. The algorithm isn't processing your loan application because it runs a bank; it's just doing what the bank's owners paid for it to do, and if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so. If anything, better AI may make them better able to leverage their existing advantages over the rest of us. And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations than we are of understanding those of other humans today.

your_ai_manager 12y ago
Algorithmic middle managers then?
- eropple 12y ago
  That would be what Uber's dispatcher system is.
Padding 12y ago
> if they want to say, "because fuck you, that's why", they can happily continue to do so Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. > And when the AI does reach human level (a long time from now), we may be no more capable of understanding its motivations (1) You're implying they/it'll have "motivations" in the first place. My whole argument was about a lack of motives. (2) There's a difference between understanding how a conclusion was reached and why it was reached. Example: You may not understand how your compiler decided that line X in your program is dead code, but you may still be capable of comprehending that it in fact is dead code.
- ijk 12y ago
  > Not if there are incentives for the algorithms to be subject to public scrutiny. The problem is that we don't have that transparency now, and aren't particularly likely to in the future. [1] Particularly for software-as-a-service: I can't audit Facebook's algorithms, despite their effects on what my friends and family see and discuss. And I can't easily audit the black box models used to make public policy, despite the value of transparency there, either. [1] http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-cathedral-of-computation/384300/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-ca...
  - deong 12y ago
    Also, it's far from clear that transparency into an AI's algorithms buys you very much. A mathematically inclined college freshman has no trouble understanding how to train a deep neural network today, but it's at the cutting edge of research to understand what function a trained network is actually computing. Scale that up in complexity a few orders of magnitude, and the thing may as well be a human. That is, you'll likely have broad understanding of its "motives", but we have that for humans today and it doesn't help that much. I understand Facebook wants to sell advertising, but that transparency isn't sufficient for understanding why a particular message is delivered to your followers while another isn't.

DennisP 12y ago

A lot of the advanced applications of algorithms are using deep neural networks. Unfortunately, it's notoriously difficult to figure out specifically why a neural network did what it did. You just end up with "because the algorithm said so, that's why."

lmm 12y ago

My experience with algorithmization so far is just the opposite. 20 years ago the bank manager would tell you "no, I'm not willing to offer you that mortgage because the house is overpriced / I called your manager and they said you were flaky / your hair was scruffy when you came in"; of course they could lie or refuse to give you a reason, but most of the time you got some explanation. Nowadays you just get "computer says no".

johnlinvc 12y ago
Looks like the bank need a random excuse generating algorithm.

imron 12y ago

> Just imagine a world where you'd never have to hear "because I said so" and "becasue fuck you, that's why" ever again Instead you'll hear "sorry, but it's the algorithm. I understand you need your paycheck, but there's nothing I can do and the programmer won't be available until the middle the of next week".