"An AI system should be able to explain which rules were used in making a decision - and who made those rules."
On Fri, May 10, 2019, 21:39 Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > I just watched a lengthy panel discussion about applying AI in the > criminal justice system, e.g. whether to release people who have been > arrested. While this is high impact, the problems they encounter are > typical of nearly all AI applications. > > Whether deciding who to arrest, who to release, what stock to invest in, > whose face it is, etc., there seems to be some really basic criteria to > applying the "I" in AI. These systems do NOT meet the basic criteria of > being able to show that they are not discriminatory, colluding, stealing, > etc. This sets their users up to lose lawsuits, and imperils the public. > > ANY system that can't explain it's output is a STATISTICAL system that is > NOT AI. > > We could probably develop and adopt a one-paragraph standard that works > for everyone here - and in the process put us on the map. > > Anyone here interested? > > Steve > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery > options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc031666044462b42-M51c2bf814f2f2050dde4236f> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/Tc031666044462b42-M20fc6b3b9b994f7ab6a421ab Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
