This is a grossly misleading headline in Harvard Business Review. AI is already tested - and retested, and tested again - for accuracy, bias, and a host of other factors. What author Carissa Véliz is actually saying is that AI should be regulated the way we regulate medicine. We don't get to this until eight paragraphs in, but we get to it: "An agency similar to the Food and Drug Administration could be created to make sure algorithms have been tested enough to be used on the public." Now I don't have an issue with regulating AI, for exactly the sorts of reasons cited in this article. But let's call it what it is - regulation. And if we're going to regulate, let's ensure that the testing and regulation is proportional to AI can produce, rather than simply copied from another discipline, and let's ensure that the focus is on preventing harm in specific applications.
Today: 1 Total: 22 [Direct link] [Share]
