this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
20 points (95.5% liked)

Futurology

1776 readers
201 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
voidx@futurology.today
Lugh@futurology.today
Espiritdescali@futurology.today
AwesomeLowlander@futurology.today
20
Santa Clarita County in California is using AI to weed out racist covenants from its 24 million deed documents that date back to 1850. (hai.stanford.edu)
submitted 4 weeks ago by Lugh@futurology.today to c/futurology@futurology.today
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lugh@futurology.today 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Even though we often (rightly) focus on our AI worries, this is evidence AI can also do society great good too.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 7 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I disagree.

Given the error rate of so-called "AI", all 5 million of those documents must still be checked by a human for accuracy.

It'd be far more efficient to simply pay people to do the work in the first place than to pay for "AI" to do the work and also paying people to check it.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Humans will have to verify, of course. "AI" is just a really fast sort. This is fine for that with human annotators. Could have just saved a bunch of money by grepping the fucking text for keywords though.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks ago

Precisely.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Surely highlighting 5 million out of 24 million is more efficient than checking them all?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

If you don't care about false negatives, maybe.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

There are only so many historical synonyms for black people, racist language should be searchable with few false negatives

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks ago

No "AI" required~

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

false negatives

I don't get your logic here either. A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 4 weeks ago

A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

I don't understand, in what way does allowing a racist deed covenant stand unchallenged have zero implications or relevance?

If it did, then what would be the point of rooting them out in the first place?

[–] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 4 points 4 weeks ago

A false negative would, as I'm understanding the goal here, be a case where the AI missed an existing problem.

It wouldn't change the current state so it wouldn't actively hurt anything though, and of course it's plenty likely a human checker would have overlooked those misses and more.