• LughOPMA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Even though we often (rightly) focus on our AI worries, this is evidence AI can also do society great good too.

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I disagree.

      Given the error rate of so-called “AI”, all 5 million of those documents must still be checked by a human for accuracy.

      It’d be far more efficient to simply pay people to do the work in the first place than to pay for “AI” to do the work and also paying people to check it.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        Humans will have to verify, of course. “AI” is just a really fast sort. This is fine for that with human annotators. Could have just saved a bunch of money by grepping the fucking text for keywords though.

      • LughOPMA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Surely highlighting 5 million out of 24 million is more efficient than checking them all?

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            There are only so many historical synonyms for black people, racist language should be searchable with few false negatives

          • LughOPMA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            false negatives

            I don’t get your logic here either. A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

            • Monkey With A Shell@lemmy.socdojo.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              A false negative would, as I’m understanding the goal here, be a case where the AI missed an existing problem.

              It wouldn’t change the current state so it wouldn’t actively hurt anything though, and of course it’s plenty likely a human checker would have overlooked those misses and more.

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 month ago

              A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

              I don’t understand, in what way does allowing a racist deed covenant stand unchallenged have zero implications or relevance?

              If it did, then what would be the point of rooting them out in the first place?