@jmaris That's not "AI". The *definition* of "AI" is the deception that the machine is exhibiting intelligence. Application and automated production of statistical models under the control of a programmer or user who understands what they're doing is not "AI".
@dalias I get where you are coming from, but that is irrelevant to me. What is relevant to me is what the institutions consider as AI, and they consider statistical models and machine learning as AI (as per the definitions in the AI act)
@jab01701mid@jmaris Applying "statistical classification" to real-world things that impact people's rights and livelihoods absolutely is something that should be subject to regulation, and when it's marketed as the machine being intelligent enough to be able to do this in reasonable and just ways and laundering responsibility off the humans who should be responsible for the choices being made, it is part of the deception that is "AI".
But there is also a lot of ML/CV stuff that's not like this. When you equate them under the banner of "AI", you let these legitimate things that predate the current "AI" deception cycle prop up a false legitimacy for "AI", and you're going to get them all dragged down with it when the bubble finishes collapsing.
@jmaris@dalias I agree, it's critically important not to allow everyone to have different definitions of things like "AI" and conflating things that are NOT similar except that they run on computers.
There is no world where I can or should be subject to "AI Regulations" by creating a statistical ML model for classification of photos of knives or flowers.
The only danger there is treating the answer as anything more than a great guess, or the basis for automated, unreviewable decisions.
@jmaris@jab01701mid It's always going to be the case that bad laws have already been written. Refusing to accept their premises as valid and insisting on truth is *how* you be proactive and make democracy work.
@jab01701mid@dalias Politicians are democratically elected by the public. They absolutely are entitled to write any specifications and laws they like.
For a democracy to work, the people in it have to be proactive. We weren't proactive enough on this.
It is too late. Laws have already been written and the common understanding is already fixed. At this point, trying to fight it is an unconstructive waste of time in my opinion. (No disrespect intended).
@jmaris@dalias This is why politicians and business leaders can't be allowed to define technical terms in domains they don't understand, or to write specs/laws then using that flawed language of "deception".
It's not too late. Insist we call things what they are, else we cannot collectively reason about them.
@jmaris@jab01701mid Effort doesn't necessarily need to be spent on changing the law, but we still need to be committed to truth and not using industry propaganda just because it's written in law.
@dalias@jab01701mid The AI act was only recently mildly revised, changing the definition of "AI" under the law would never be an acceptable change to the majority of elected politicians, and there is no popular will to do it.
I think there are bigger fights to be fought and that's where i'll focus my efforts, but we each have to try to fix our little corner of the world to make a better world!