Tea to TechnologyEnglish • edit-215 hours agoU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes to review social media of people applying for US citizenship, green cards, and asylum or refugee status, to comply with Trump's Executive order.www.federalregister.govexternal-linkmessage-square9fedilinkarrow-up171arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected]
arrow-up169arrow-down1external-linkU.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services proposes to review social media of people applying for US citizenship, green cards, and asylum or refugee status, to comply with Trump's Executive order.www.federalregister.govTea to TechnologyEnglish • edit-215 hours agomessage-square9fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected]
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish5•12 hours agoThis actually makes sense. The problem though, will be the same reason fact checkers failed; personal and institutional bias on what’s considered acceptable. Only an unbiased AI could do this well, and that’s a loose statement.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish11•11 hours agoI don’t think there’s such a thing as an unbiased AI. They’re all biased based on the input data. Something like this would be inherently subjective, it’s not a pure data question with a clear yes or no.
minus-square@CptBreadlinkEnglish1•edit-210 hours agoMachine learning and LLMs isn’t the only way to do AI though. (though your second point I do kinda agree with)
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish0•9 hours agoI feel like you missed my “loose statement” point
This actually makes sense. The problem though, will be the same reason fact checkers failed; personal and institutional bias on what’s considered acceptable.
Only an unbiased AI could do this well, and that’s a loose statement.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as an unbiased AI. They’re all biased based on the input data.
Something like this would be inherently subjective, it’s not a pure data question with a clear yes or no.
Machine learning and LLMs isn’t the only way to do AI though. (though your second point I do kinda agree with)
I feel like you missed my “loose statement” point