[nologic01]

Inane "AI" regurgitating what it is parsing from social media echo chambers as the epitome of "progress".

You cant blame algorithms. People will get the digital society they deserve. Unless they do something about it.

A sane online world will not materialize as a god-given present. It will the result of informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes.

The challenge is commensurate with any of the major civic struggles of the past.

[Rhubi]

Or maybe our masters to be could put a little more effort into what goes into their black boxes instead of counting their future fortunes.

[mrighele]

You can't blame algorithms, you can blame those writing and using them.

Humans at Amazon decided to add such a feature to Alexa, somebody else implemented it and somebody decided to use crap data, so you can blame somebody.

[surgical_fire]

> It will the result of informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes.

The interesting part is that people that post bullshit online often believe that they are "informed, enlightened and passionate people banging about the cause for as long as it takes".

[amelius]

A sane algorithm would at least say there are different answers depending on who you ask.

[ALittleLight]

Why can't I blame algorithms? These are heuristics that often misinform people. In my view someone, maybe Biden or the DNC or the FEC or the people asking Alexa, should have a claim to sue Amazon for something like defamation. Amazon has a reckless disregard for the truth and publishes lies through Alexa. (Assuming all this is true, no opinion on that).

If Amazon gets sued enough they'll either make their service better or discontinue it.

[swores]

Sounds like you support blaming the creators / users of algorithms, not the algorithms themselves?

Even if the best solution were to make these types of algorithms & code illegal, it still wouldn't exactly be "blaming" the algorithms - the same as when people call for gun control they're still blaming the shooters of guns for the actual crimes committed, not the guns, but banning the guns is seen (by gun control advocates) as a way of preventing those bad actors from doing what they'd otherwise do.

[tgv]

Sounds like the post also uses it in those terms: not the set of weights that make up this particular NN, but rather the whole system around it. I infer that from

> People will get the digital society they deserve

Algorithms don't create digital societies, other people do, and they use these algorithms to create them on the cheap.

[GTP]

I think it's a two steps process: you first realize that there's an issue with the algorithm. Then, since it doesn't make sense to give a fine to an algorithm, you held the creators and/or users responsible (depending on the specific case).

[nologic01]

> These are heuristics that often misinform people

Algorithms don't misinform people, people choose to use algorithms beyond what is deemed acceptable or safe (where these are moving, socially defined attributes).

There is nothing new here. A person can misinform other people using linear regression. The old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics" captures precisely that reality.

We can't escape the difficult debates. Our societies produce alot of information and keeps producing more. How that is processed, dissemniated and acted upon is a vital question and imho people haven't quite woken up to this new reality.