It's as though artificial intelligence itself were a cryptological problem where it's only real when it becomes sufficiently complex that information about who is accountable for it is destroyed.
It's as though artificial intelligence itself were a cryptological problem where it's only real when it becomes sufficiently complex that information about who is accountable for it is destroyed.
At the end of the day if you falsely arrest someone, fire them on bad grounds, etc then you're the responsible party. The excuse "Well but someone told me to!" doesn't work any better when you're blaming a machine instead of a person - it's still bunk.
If the model is broken, well then that's on you. A vendor sold you a magical model saying it was perfect and you got in trouble anyways? Well, you can go on and try to sue the vendor and hash that out - after you pay for your mistake.
It's critically important we don't allow models to become get out of jail free cards.
1. sellers/providers of the model, if they lied about the efficiency
2. buyers/deciders, who not necessarily the same as those using the model (usually their bosses)
Someone who writes your legal contract isn't liable if you badly enforce it.
Myth-making about ML as a shadowy conspiracy—instead of just another tool for engineering, like databases—is counter-productive.
The "main use case" for ML is the literal one, "designing models that can learn to predict high probability outcomes in situations where a deterministic model cannot be applied." It is another technology in an engineer's toolkit. Look at your smartphone, and you will see that the majority of apps you use rely on machine learning for ETA prediction, content recommendation, speech-to-text, image processing, translation, spam filtering, etc.