Comment by altairprime
1 year ago
California’s labor board could state that anyone impacted by algorithmic decisions has the right to review the algorithm used, and that all algorithms used must be deterministic and diagrammable. If clearly stated, “flip a coin” or “choose one at random” is fine, but “trained AI network” is not.
This would shine light on algorithms used at Uber, DoorDash, Amazon, Microsoft, Workday (based in Oakland). Anyone with a worker in California whose work is subject to algorithmic intervention would have the right to request the source code to all algorithms impacting their gig, temporary, or permanent employment.
I cannot imagine a more frightening regulatory path for California tech. They would spend a billion dollars trying to stop it.
Be careful with your choice of wording here. There are many non-{AI,ML} algorithms that are not deterministic. Hell, we don't even have to go to Turing or talk about Busy Beaver. What about encryption? We want to inject noise here and want that noise to be as random and indeterminable as possible.
There are also many optimization algorithms that require random processes. This can even include things like finding the area under a curve because it may be faster to use Monte Carlo Integration. You might not even be able to do it otherwise.
An ANN is certainly diagrammable.
I understand the intent of your words and even agree with it. I think openness and transparency are critical. But because I care and agree I want to make sure we recognize how difficult that the wording is. Because it is often easy to implement a solution that creates a bigger problem than the thing we sought to solve.
Personally, I'd love to see that things become "Software Available." I mean if it was a requirement for everyone, then it is much easier to "prove" when code is cloned. Of course, this is easier said than done since there's many "many ways to skin a cat" but in essence, this is not too dissimilar from physical manufacturing. It's really hard to keep secrets in hardware. Plus, there's benefits like you can fix your fucking tractor when it breaks down. Or fix a car even if it is half a century old. I do expect if this would become reality that it'd need a lot more nuance and my own critique applies, but I just wanted to put it out there (in part, to get that critique).
Obviously a diagram of an ANN is ‘possible’ and just as obviously it’s not in compliance relative to an algorithm with a runbook as most governments recognize and use. I’m not writing a forum comment with the law or rule as I would craft it to ensure that a judge can reasonably find against such examples. HN is not a useful place to workshop legalese :)
No law or rule will be able to, in ‘legal’ code terms, fully exclude attempts to slip through loopholes in the proposed restriction. That doesn’t at all invalidate the threat of it; that’s just the cost of doing business with any legal code — which, itself, cannot be interpreted fully deterministically at all.
You’re welcome to propose better wording, of course; and: I also recommend writing a letter to an elected representative or state board if you do! I think they would jump at the chance to even the odds without being seen as disadvantaging their sponsors.
Fair enough. Though I suspect that it will be quite difficult to find the right words, even with substantial legalese. But I did want to make the note of caution. Especially as this even permeates into the public language, which in turn ends up being what politicians use because they just care about signaling instead of solving the actual problems...
2 replies →
For the most sensitive algorithms, if the algorithm cannot be explained in easily understandable language (as determined by a jury), then it's illegal.
(It's how we use paper ballots rather than machines, and especially not everyday computers for voting : the extra risk just isn't worth it.)
You've just made
and so much more illegal. You've probably made all of computing illegal because good luck explaining systemd let alone kernels to a jury.
6 replies →