Unaccountable, unfair, poorly managed deployments of such everyday AI systems have the potential to cause enormous harm.
We’ve seen Robodebt harm hundreds of thousands of Australians. Sexist AI-enabled job recruitment tools, AI-enabled stadium security systems that let a gun into the Melbourne Cricket Ground, racist policing algorithms, and AI meal-planners that recommend poisonous recipes are just a few among thousands of examples of everyday AI harms and risks.
This is the internet,I don’t care who wrote it, I only judge arguments by their soundness.
And even then, my issue isn’t with their arguments, which I haven’t addressed (I don’t know why you think I strawman-ed them), it’s that they don’t have one.
At best, they’re saying that the latest AI guidelines don’t cover risks the government previously identified and already took action on, pending review.
How does that contribute to the narrative that the new guidelines are incorrectly focused?
It smells of the Chewbacca’s defense, unless you can enlighten me with a better reading.