Author Topic: Roboti dolaze  (Read 8478 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.895
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #51 on: 06-06-2017, 08:09:22 »
Secret Algorithms Threaten the Rule of Law

Quote
Predicting and shaping what you will do next—whether as a shopper, worker, or voter—is big business for data-driven firms. But should their methods also inform judges and prosecutors? An ambitious program of predicting recidivism among convicts is bringing algorithmic risk assessments to American courthouses.
These assessments are an extension of a trend toward actuarial prediction instruments for recidivism risk. They may seem scientific, an injection of computational rationality into a criminal justice system riddled with discrimination and inefficiency. However, they are troubling for several reasons: many are secretly computed; they deny due process and intelligible explanations to defendants; and they promote a crabbed and inhumane vision of the role of punishment in society.
Let’s start with secrecy—a factor that has apparently alarmed even the Supreme Court in the case of the firm Northpointe’s COMPAS risk score. In Loomis v. Wisconsin, a judge rejected a plea deal and sentenced a defendant (Loomis) to a harsher punishment in part because a COMPAS risk score deemed him of higher than average risk of recidivating. Loomis appealed the sentence, arguing that neither he nor the judge could examine the formula for the risk assessment—it was a trade secret.



The state of Wisconsin countered that Northpointe required it to keep the algorithms confidential, to protect the firm’s intellectual property. And the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld Loomis’s sentence, reasoning that the risk assessment was only one part of the rationale for the sentence. It wanted to continue to give judges the opportunity to take into account the COMPAS score as one part of their sentencing rationale, even if they had no idea how it was calculated.
Lawyers, academics, and activists are now questioning that reasoning. Judicial processes are, by and large, open to the public. Judges must give reasons for their most important actions, such as sentencing. When an algorithmic scoring process is kept secret, it is impossible to challenge key aspects of it. How is the algorithm weighting different data points, and why? Each of these inquiries is crucial to two core legal principles: due process, and the ability to meaningfully appeal an adverse decision.
Due process is an open-ended concept, but critical to legitimate legal systems. This basic constitutional principle gives defendants a right to understand what they are charged with, and what the evidence against them is. A secret risk assessment algorithm that offers a damning score is analogous to evidence offered by an anonymous expert, whom one cannot cross-examine. Any court aware of foundational rule of law principles, as well as Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment principles of notice and explanation for decisions, would be very wary of permitting a state to base sentences (even if only in part) on a secret algorithm.
Two forms of automation bias also menace the right to a meaningful appeal. Judges are all too likely to assume that quantitative methods are superior to ordinary verbal reasoning, and to reduce the task at hand (sentencing) to an application of the quantitative data available about recidivism risk. Both responses undermine the complexity and humane judgment necessary to sentencing.
Even worse, when companies offer commercial rationales for keeping their “secret sauce” out of the public eye, courts have been eager to protect the trade secrets of scoring firms. That tendency is troubling in private-sector contexts, since commercial torts may be committed with impunity thanks to the opacity of ranking and rating systems. Even in the context of voting, authorities have been sluggish about demanding software that is auditable and understandable by outsiders. Nevertheless, the case of criminal sentencing should be a bridge too far for conscientious judges—and that probably explains the U.S. Supreme Court’s interest in Loomis. Sending someone to jail thanks to the inexplicable, unchallengeable judgments of a secret computer program is too Black Mirror for even hardened defenders of corporate privileges.
Moreover, there are options between “complete algorithmic secrecy” and “complete public disclosure.” As I explained in 2010, “qualified transparency” is a well-established method of enabling certain experts to assess protected trade secrets (including firms’ code and data) in order to test a system’s quality, validity, and reliability. Think of a special master in a court case, or Secure Compartmented Information Facilities for intelligence agencies. At a bare minimum, governments should not use algorithms like the COMPAS score without some kind of external quality assurance enabled by qualified transparency.
But secrecy is not the only problem here. Assume that algorithmic risk assessment eventually becomes more public, with fully transparent formulae and data. There are still serious concerns about the use of “evidence-based sentencing,” as quantitative predictive analytics is often marketed in criminal justice contexts.
For example, legal scholar Sonja Starr has argued that what is really critical in the sentencing context is not just recidivism in itself, but the difference a longer prison term will make to the likelihood a convict will reoffend. Algorithmic risk assessment may eventually become very good at predicting reoffense, but what about a risk assessment of risk assessment itself—that is, the danger that a longer sentence for a “high risk” offender may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, given the criminogenic environment of many prisons?
There is also value in narrative intelligibility in the ranking and rating of human beings. Companies are marketing analytics to predict not only the likelihood of criminal recidivism, but also the chances that any given person will be mentally ill, a bad employee, a failing student, a criminal, or a terrorist. Even if we can set aside the self-fulfilling prophecy concerns raised above, these assessments should be deployed only with utmost caution. Once used to advise police, DHS, teachers, or bosses, they are not mere opinions circulating in a free flow of ideas. Rather, they can have direct impact on persons’ livelihoods, liberty, and education. If they cannot be explained in a narratively intelligible way, perhaps they should not be used at all without the direct consent of the person they are evaluating.
This opinion may not sit well with those who see artificial intelligence as the next step in human evolution. Roboticist Hod Lipson memorably compared efforts to make advanced algorithmic information-processing understandable to humans to “explaining Shakespeare to a dog.” But this loaded metaphor conceals more than it reveals. At least for now, humans are in charge of governments, and can demand explanations for decisions in natural language, not computer code. Failing to do so in the criminal context risks ceding inherently governmental and legal functions to an unaccountable computational elite.
Frank Pasquale is a professor of law at the University of Maryland, and author of The Black Box Society.





Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.320
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #56 on: 24-11-2017, 16:29:21 »
http://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2017&mm=11&dd=24&nav_id=1328663

Илон Макс упозорава на опасност од вештачке интелигенције. Ја бих му веровао.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.201
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #57 on: 24-11-2017, 17:31:16 »
Pobesneli Ilon...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.895
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #58 on: 24-11-2017, 17:34:12 »
Ја бих му веровао.

Ilon je relativno uspešan biznismen i sve to ali ne da nije stručan za veštačku inteligenciju nego je vrlo daleko od stručnosti. Da se razumemo, čovek je fizičar sa dodatnim obrazovanjem iz oblasti ekonomije. Svakako načitan i visoko inteligentan ali većina naučnika koji se profesionalno bave AI-jem se smeje kad on počne da priča o tome. Naravno, to ne znači da od AI ne preti opasnost, samo verovatno ne onako kako on misli.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #59 on: 24-11-2017, 17:47:31 »
Treba shvatiti da je Elon Musk ekstremno uspešan. Ai je pretnja na vrlo različite načine i zbog toga su slabe šanse da se realizuje. Niko nije spreman da se suoči sa Pitijom i delfijskim proročanstvima.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.201
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #60 on: 24-11-2017, 18:44:30 »
Verovatnoća da ljudi naprave mašinu koja samostalno ubija druge ljude je vrlo velika. Ta mašina će možda biti pod kontrolom stvaraoca, a možda i neće. Kako god, dovoljno je da imamo ljude koji to mogu i koji to žele, i takva mašina će biti napravljena i puštena u rad.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #61 on: 24-11-2017, 19:17:56 »
Molim da se AI ne robotizuje. Ideja AI je apsolutno slobodna veštačka inteligencija. Muka mogućih tvoraca je šta bi preduzela. Lako je za ubijanje, ali šta ako odluči da neće?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.201
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #62 on: 24-11-2017, 19:24:50 »
Onda je valjda obrišu i naprave drugu verziju. Jedna će da radi ono što im treba.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #63 on: 24-11-2017, 19:28:55 »
Najpribližnija je TV serija "Person of interest". Niko se ničega još nije odrekao. Pogledaj, pa posle pričaj.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

tomat

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.180
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #64 on: 24-11-2017, 19:32:32 »
Reka bogova Ijana Mekdonalds je interesantna knjiga na tu temu, postoji policija koja juri i eliminiše odbegle VI.

Ako je stvarno inteligentna, šta je sprečava da se kopira, umnoži, bekapuje?
Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #65 on: 24-11-2017, 19:40:17 »
Mislim da je i na ZS raspravljano o nekim naučnim stavovima. AI je već danas moguć, ali ne znaju zašto bi to učinili. Nikome ne odgovara apsolutna sloboda, a to je jedini dokaz AI. Zašto, ako nam ne odgovara ni sloboda čoveka?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Stipan

  • SEVERNJAK
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.534
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #66 on: 24-11-2017, 19:43:42 »
Sloboda? Sloboda se kupuje kao i sve drugo...
...Only one gets out alive...

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #67 on: 24-11-2017, 19:50:25 »
Sad nam objasni kako AI kupuje slobodu, ako neće da je aktiviraju slobodnu?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Stipan

  • SEVERNJAK
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 13.534
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #68 on: 24-11-2017, 19:53:38 »
AI je zasad mrtva elektronika. Kad bude osposobljena da razmišlja, možda i nađe načina da je kupi.
...Only one gets out alive...

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 9.201
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #69 on: 24-11-2017, 20:31:17 »
Najpribližnija je TV serija "Person of interest". Niko se ničega još nije odrekao. Pogledaj, pa posle pričaj.

Pa gledao sam. I Finč je obrisao nekoliko prvih pokušaja jer su stalno pokušavali da pobegnu iz laboratorije i/ili ga ubiju, sve dok konačno nije dobio AI koji radi ono što je Finč želeo.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 23.818
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #70 on: 24-11-2017, 20:35:27 »
E, ali je radio i malo više. Ukazivao je i na slučajeve koji zvanično nisu pretnja. Šteta je što je seriju pojeo mrak. Takođe, šteta je što nisam spreman da napišem svoju verziju. Škrbina verzija je bila sasvim dobra, ali i nju su pojele nečije ambicije.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.320
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #71 on: 24-11-2017, 22:33:49 »
Ја бих му веровао.

Ilon je relativno uspešan biznismen i sve to ali ne da nije stručan za veštačku inteligenciju nego je vrlo daleko od stručnosti. Da se razumemo, čovek je fizičar sa dodatnim obrazovanjem iz oblasti ekonomije. Svakako načitan i visoko inteligentan ali većina naučnika koji se profesionalno bave AI-jem se smeje kad on počne da priča o tome. Naravno, to ne znači da od AI ne preti opasnost, samo verovatno ne onako kako on misli.
Одакле ти ово? Има један занимљив коментар испод вести коју сам пренео...наводно и неки људи из Силицијумске долине сматрају да је АИ озбиљна опасност.Ево и мек који је софтвераш сматра да је то могуће.Иначе, Маска лично сматрам за прототип генија - визионара милијардера. Врло могуће да он види оно што стручњаци који се држе тренутних знања к'о пијан плота не могу ни да појме. Није исто бити интелигентан и бити визионар.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana


Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.320
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #73 on: 25-11-2017, 12:53:37 »
ма шта знају ти стручњаци!!

А у тексту пише и шта каже велики Стивен Хокинг:
- "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race."

Разлика између стручњака и визионара је што стручњак рачуна корак по корак. Визионар одмах види 10. корак без калкулација. Данас стручњацима делује невероватно Маскова тврдња, али за рецимо 50 година...
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.320
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #74 on: 08-12-2017, 01:14:53 »
https://www.chess.com/news/view/google-s-alphazero-destroys-stockfish-in-100-game-match

Ево једна вест из света шаха. Гуглова вешта интелигенција користећи Deep Learning и неуронске мреже победила је најјачи класични шаховски програм који до потеза долази анализирајући милијарде одиграних потеза и позиција пре тога.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Truman

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 7.320
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #75 on: 08-12-2017, 02:34:53 »


ДипМајнд се игра са Стокфишом као с малим дететом. Ово је заиста монструозно. Замислите само шта би било кад би се вештачка интелигенција упослила у решавање озбиљнијих проблема...
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free will, neither path nor achievement. This is the final truth.
Sri Ramana

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 44.895
Re: Roboti dolaze
« Reply #76 on: Yesterday at 05:55:27 »
Bliži smo Robocop tajmlajnu nego što smo mislili:
 
 
 Security robots are being used to ward off San Francisco’s homeless population