The land lords who used the service should also be held liable. You mean to tell me you get a report with a binary answer and you just trust it with no due diligence? If there is no penalty for blindly trusting an algorithm they will just move to the next tool they can use to be bigots.
this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
462 points (99.4% liked)
Technology
60101 readers
1877 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Boy wait until you hear about credit scores...
If there are suicides linked to wronged applicants, they should be charged with at least "involuntary" manslaughter
How do you criminally charge an organization? Like who's reponsible? CEO? Stockholders? The Board of Directors?
Here's an explanation from the Associated Press. The penalty is usually a fine, which impacts stockholders by making the stock less valuable and could lead them to remove board members or demand the termination of executives. It's rarely used, but there is a corporate death penalty.
The fact that I’ve never heard of the corporate death penalty until now, but they’re bringing back the actual death penalty says everything.
"I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
The penalty is usually a fine, which impacts stockholders by making the stock less valuable
Of course they can always compensate for this by firing a bunch of people.
Well stockholders don't have executive capabilities. The CEO is responsible. Could hold board responsible too if they knew.
In order to be a director of a business you have to assume the legal responsibility of the organisation. You need more than 1 director and ignorance is not an excuse, there are expectations of awareness and involvement for anyone legally in a director role.
You could revoke their corporate charter.
Yes
$2.28 million is pocket change for the capitalists, they will learn nothing
Just another cost of running business.
At least they were banned from using AI screening for 5 years.
I’d hope breaking a court order would result in the kind of punishments they would actually fear.
Now they're promising to only be pretty racist.
OK some people got paid.. The problem didn't get solved
Classic america
Crappy-ass fine and simply a "cost of doing business" for them I bet. Damages have been done for which there is no undoing. Deplorable.
Just do you job you lazy cunts. Stop trying get ai to do everything. Real estate agents should be checking this stuff it's part of the role.
But AI is so useful for laundering racism, sexism, and IP theft with plausible deniability.
Residential renters generally don't use a real estate agent.
A letting agent maybe?
In any case it's their job to be racist, not an AI.
I'm not certain if we have letting agents in the US. I certainly have never used one, and I've rented in at least 30+ states. I've lived in 49/50, but that's counting while living with my parents, so I'm not going through the effort to figure out the exact number.
I would agree with your humorous throwaway, but that is actually the reality of the US unfortunately.
They do where I live.
Well that isn't the US, clearly. The article is about the US.
And my comment is clearly about whichever job is managing the task being replaced by AI. What does it matter if you think the job title is wrong?
SafeRent was a giant piece of shit before “AI”. I tried to rent a place 15 years ago that used them. The report returned several serious felonies committed over years by another person with an only vaguely similar name who lived in a state I had never even visited.
The leasing office people admitted that the report was transparently bogus, but they still had orders to deny all housing to negative reports.
My only recourse at the time was to lock my record so they won’t issue reports in my name at all. I now ask right up front who a renter uses for screening and they get a vigorous ‘nope’ if they use SafeRent.
Fsck SafeRent!
There was lecture by Cory Doctrow about it.
I want that guy to be world president
-Edit:
Adding Edit to the beginning to stop the replies from people who read the scenario for context and can't fight their compulsion to reply by nitpicking my completely made up list of "unbiased" metrics. To these peeps I say, "Fucking no. Bad dog. No!" I don't fucking care about your commentary to a quickly made up scenario. Whatever qualms you have, just fuckin change the imaginary scenario so it fits the purpose of what the purpose of the story is serving.
-Preface of actual comment:
Completely made up scenario to give context to my question. This is not me defending anything referenced to the article.
-Actual scenario with read, write, edit permissions to all users:
What if the court order the release of the AI code and training methods for this tenant analysis AI bot and found the metrics used were simply credit score, salary, employer and former rental references. No supplied data for race, name, background check or anything else that would tip the boy toward or away from any bias results. So this pure as it could be bot still produces the same results as seen in the article. Again, imaginary scenario that is likely no foundation of truth.
-My questions for the provided context:
-
Are there studies that compare methods of training LLMs with results showing differences in results ranging from less or no racist bias and more racist bias?
-
Are there ways of training LLMs to perform without bias or is the problem with the LLM's code and no matter how you train them there will always be a bias presence?
-
In the exact imaginary scenario, would the pure, unbiased angel version of rhe AI bot but producing equally racist results as biased trained AI bots see different court rulings that the AI that shows it's flawed design caused the biased results?
-I'm using bias over racist to reach broader area beyond race related issues. My driving purposes is:
-
To better understand how courts are handling AI related cases and if they give a fuck about the framework and design of the AI or if none of that matters and the courts are just looking at the results;
-
Wondering if there are ways to make or already made LLMs that aren't biased and what about their design makes them biased, is it the doing of the makers of the LLM or is it the training and implication of the LLM by the enduser/training party that is to blame?
The article is fake news. I suggest looking elsewhere for proper information.
As for your questions: LLMs were certainly not involved here. I can't guess what techniques were used.
Racial discrimination is often hard to nail down. Race is implicit in any number of facts. Place of birth, current address, school, ... You could infer race from such data. If you do not look at race at all but the end result still discriminates, then it's probably still racial discrimination. I say probably because you are free to do what you like and discriminate based on any number of factors, as long as it isn't race, sex, and the like. You certainly may discriminate based on education or wealth. Things being as they are, that will discriminate against minorities. They have systematically lower credit ratings, for example.
In the case of generative AI, bias is often not clearly defined. For example, you type "US President" into an image generator. All US presidents so far were male, and all but one white. But half of all people who are eligible for the presidency are female and (I think) a little less than half non-white. So what's the non-biased output?