Honestly a pretty poor article, that seems to make significant use that an "AI" decides anything trope
We are nowhere near having an AI decide anything. Like we literally still don't even really know where to start.
All we have is ML, which is good at making text that sounds authoritative and can string bits together. That's not deciding things any more than any other mathematical alorgorim is. And it's not going to end the world any more than any other bit of software is - which is to say it's a non-zero risk but that's why we audit code that runs things like nuclear weapons more closely.
Is ML some utopia? Clearly not. But the tools are unlikely to be much more disruptive than a bunch of revolutions we have already had. Will individual bits of regulation on certain outcomes have to happen? Of course - we should be ensuring that banks can't deny services based on black box ML decisions. But that really isn't any different to how we should be regulating how banks deny services based on flat algorithms. It's not a new problem.
Re >> "which is good at making text that sounds authoritative and can string bits together. That's not deciding things any more than any other mathematical alorgorim is"
You make a good point. And I do agree with you. I am still afraid of people treating the AI with more authority than it deserves. I see this with my kid sometimes. It's not over-reliance, it's over-trust.
For example: We'll be camping. They'll look at their phone to see the temperature, whereas I look at my car's dash thermometer. They trust their phone over my car every time, because the phone is smart, and I have to keep reminding them: That is coming from a weather station 2 valleys over, 10 miles away, and 1,000ft lower in elevation. My car is right here.
I can definitely see people putting too much well-intentioned faith in the AI because it "sounds authoritative".
We are nowhere near having an AI decide anything. Like we literally still don't even really know where to start.
All we have is ML, which is good at making text that sounds authoritative and can string bits together. That's not deciding things any more than any other mathematical alorgorim is. And it's not going to end the world any more than any other bit of software is - which is to say it's a non-zero risk but that's why we audit code that runs things like nuclear weapons more closely.
Is ML some utopia? Clearly not. But the tools are unlikely to be much more disruptive than a bunch of revolutions we have already had. Will individual bits of regulation on certain outcomes have to happen? Of course - we should be ensuring that banks can't deny services based on black box ML decisions. But that really isn't any different to how we should be regulating how banks deny services based on flat algorithms. It's not a new problem.