HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

smcgregor

no profile record

comments

smcgregor
·2 lata temu·discuss
Data science is the practice of producing knowledge rather than building/coding. You can make systems that leverage that knowledge in an automated matter, but when you are deciding what to build, it is not a matter of coding. It is a matter for management. In my experience the sort of arguments a PhD can make fall on deaf ears when management lacks the requisite skills. An organization where the PhD in stats, ML, etc. produces the same outcomes as the code camp hero should look at its management structure before doubting the value of experience at depth.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
The CVE and consumer product incident databases are as close as it gets at present, but that may be changing soon... Much is happening. :)
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
Please let us know if we missed the mark!

https://incidentdatabase.ai/editors-guide/
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
The line is not so clear as you are indicating. If I produce a system that makes 7 billion people feel slightly more depressed, then that system will in all probability contributed to a non-zero number of suicides. The unfortunate matter is that with fantastical scale there comes a need for systems that can understand the long tail of outcomes because there are real lives and impacts in the tails.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
You found it, more is coming in this regard in about 7 weeks. It is a data annotation task more than a systems one at this point.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
Collaborators are already working to provide data labels to all incidents that would support this particular filter. Many filters are available here: https://incidentdatabase.ai/apps/discover/?display=details&i...
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
Great point! We are constantly discussing the criteria. For example, if a robot lost power and fell on someone, do you think that is an incident? What if the robot was never turned on and fell on someone in shipping? When these challenges come up, we try to expand the editing guide to meet the challenge of all the ways intelligence of the artificial variety can go wrong.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
Incident 73 dates back several years -- it is part of the initial Google spreadsheet from 2018. At the time, we had no formal definitions [0] or criteria [1] and only a vague idea of what we would find. My cursory re-read of 73 agrees with your assessment. We are likely to define it as not being an AI incident, but the incident profiles are also meant to be permalinks that the research/blogging/etc communities can analyze and build community around. I'll bring 73 to our weekly editors meeting and we may add it to the list of incidents that didn't pass additional scrutiny [2]. Like Wikipedia, we can't expect ourselves to get it right every time, but we can strive to always improve the processes for producing a solid ground truth. Please let us know our failings and/or consider working to become an AIID editor yourself.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10384

[1] https://incidentdatabase.ai/editors-guide/

[2] Listed in the report here: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/298/#r2471
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
After many protracted discussions among editors, we decided not to threshold the severity of the harm. An allegation of harm is enough. Not all incidents are created equal when it comes to severity and the taxonomy feature helps sort through these questions on top of the permalink the incident profiles provide.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
Incident severity and scale varies wildly between incidents. We provide the taxonomy feature to support organizations like CSET adding color to incidents that support more descriptive stats.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
(I am from the org behind the Incident Database)

I agree about it being a stretch, but we err towards indexing boundary cases. This one turns on whether you would consider the web application as being part of ChatGPT or not. In aviation, there are many systems that are part of safely flying from point to point that are not part of the plane itself. The control tower, the runway markings, and the processes built around these things. While the ChatGPT web application is not the model underlying the ChatGPT front end, it is part of the whole intelligent system.

More information: https://incidentdatabase.ai/editors-guide/

Edit: On Slack we considering downgrading this one to the second tier status, which is an "issue," but our "issue" definition typically differentiates between events (a harm happened) and non-events (a harm may happen). This doesn't quite fit here. We have robust editor discussions around these ontological problems and are developing the ruleset in response to challenges. We aim for inter-rater reliability via the editor's guide. More details are here https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10384
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
I am one of the people behind the website and have been building AI "looms" for 13 years. We are working to make AI safer as our goal -- we are not working to smash the looms. Without the FAA and similar orgs/efforts, it is unlikely that millions of people would be flying today.
smcgregor
·3 lata temu·discuss
(I am one of the people behind the website)

We index everything that people believe is AI. Including GOFAI, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOFAI

We also index incidents related to people transferring decision authority to simple programs like the Stanford vaccine distribution: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/91/

In general, we err towards indexing useful information to the state of AI safety and introduced indexing "AI Issues" to develop the boundary and collect information on systems likely to produce incidents in the future: https://incidentdatabase.ai/apps/discover/?display=details&i...

Our editing guide is here: https://incidentdatabase.ai/editors-guide/