|
|
|
|
|
|
by warrenronsiek
1205 days ago
|
|
|
So ML systems are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent? Requiring the claimant have some evidence might not be a perfect legal regime, but the converse is a de-facto ban on innovation. Can a human _prove_ that their decisions are made without bias? No. Are we going to hold them to the same standard proposed here for an AI? Also no. In practice, rules like the one proposed here just enshrine legacy decision systems which are already understood to biased and ineffective. The most mysterious black box we have is the human brain. |
|
|
What would you say of requiring training data and hyperparameter archiving for subsequent legal review?