this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
676 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2650 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Highlights: The White House issued draft rules today that would require federal agencies to evaluate and constantly monitor algorithms used in health care, law enforcement, and housing for potential discrimination or other harmful effects on human rights.

Once in effect, the rules could force changes in US government activity dependent on AI, such as the FBI’s use of face recognition technology, which has been criticized for not taking steps called for by Congress to protect civil liberties. The new rules would require government agencies to assess existing algorithms by August 2024 and stop using any that don’t comply.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KeraKali@lemmy.world 100 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (18 children)

“If the benefits do not meaningfully outweigh the risks, agencies should not use the AI,” the memo says. But the draft memo carves out an exemption for models that deal with national security and allows agencies to effectively issue themselves waivers if ending use of an AI model “would create an unacceptable impediment to critical agency operations.”

This tells me that nothing is going to change if people can just say their algoriths would make them too inefficient. Great sentiment but this loophole will make it useless.

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 41 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This seems to me like an exception that would realistically only apply to the CIA, NSA, and sometimes the FBI. I doubt the Department of Housing and Urban Development will get a pass. Overall seems like a good change in a good direction.

[–] mememuseum@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (8 children)

The CIA and NSA are exactly who we don't want using it though.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago

They're exactly who will carry on using it, even if there weren't any exemptions.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Like either of those agencies will let us know what they are doing in the first place.

At a certain level, there are no rules when they never have to tell what they are doing.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

given the "success" of Israel's hi tech border fence it seems like bureacracies think tech will work better than actually, you know, resolving/preventing geopolitical problems with diplomacy and intelligence.

I worry these kind of tech solutions become a predictable crutch. Assuming there is some kind of real necessity to these spy programs (debatable) it seems like reliance on data tech can become a weakness as soon as those intending harm understand how it works

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

I'm actually less worried about them.

Local police departments on the other hand, can arrest and get you sent to jail based on flimsy facial recognition, and it doesn't even make the local news.

I'd rather them not either, but don't underestimate the harm bad management of other organizations can and has done.

[–] Redrum714@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well they already are lol. It makes their jobs much easier so I wouldn’t be surprised if they have better library’s than the public services.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

the fact that the CIA and NSA will have the AI is the most effective argument for why we should have the AI.

It’s the basic idea of the second amendment all over again:

  • It would be great if nobody had guns
  • But the government isn’t going to stop having guns
  • And only one side having guns is way worse than everyone having guns
  • So everyone gets to have guns

The exact same applies in this situation with AI:

  • It would be great if nobody had AI
  • But the government isn’t going to stop having AI
  • And only one side having AI is way worse than everyone having AI
  • So everyone gets to have AI
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Algorithms that gerrymander voting district boundries might be an early battleground.

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The early battleground of 2010 when they started using RedMap.

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

"Realistically" baahahaba. Right.

load more comments (14 replies)