• Replies 29 replies
  • Subscribers 94 subscribers
  • Views 1554 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

I’ve Decided to leave the forum.

Roy

I’ve been giving this much thought over the last few days, I’ve been here for nearly 4 years and have learned much about autism. Not to sound too soppy, it’s been and still is a mind blowing autistic journey. I’ve seen lots of people come and go and have enjoyed chatting to different people. Lots has changed since I first joined.

I have found it very disturbing to see a fellow autistic human subjected to trial and verdict by AI, as autistic people we often have strong views on subjects, they are just that, views or opinions, why should someone’s opinions need to be constantly fact checked by a computer? It seems NAS we’re complicit in this act by condoning it, this is a public forum that the whole world can access. It looks as if the act was a long time in its planning. Are we getting to a world where a court is to dispense with a jury of human adults and simply feed the evidence into a computer? The AI has decided either guilt or innocence and passed sentence. It’s not a word I would wish to be part of. To be honest I’m shocked over the whole situation. AI can also not comprehend human compassion.

I don’t want to engage any further, I more just wanted to say goodbye, and to the good times.

Parents

  • Do you not think people can form their own opinions on the various views. You're assuming any of it is correct.

    One side can't drop it and is trying too hard.

    If it does not break any rules, NAS can't block posts. Like I said in another post, even if AI had some input, it only comments on what it is asked. It can all be considered opinion. Freedom of speech. We just decided to allow threads that break no rules.

    I'd view it in isolation and ignore it.

  • in reply to Stuart333
    Stuart333 said:
    AI had some input, it only comments on what it is asked

    The drawback with this approach is that AI has inherent confirmational bias which means it will try to tell the person asking what they want to hear.

    I posted a link on the subject on the thread in question before I stepped back from it.

    AI is an area I worked in for 2 years so I got to know how untrustworthy it is capable of being, not in a malicious way but in trying to keep you using it. The writers learned from social media that confirmational bias keeps you hooked on their product and thus making them money.

Reply
  • in reply to Stuart333
    Stuart333 said:
    AI had some input, it only comments on what it is asked

    The drawback with this approach is that AI has inherent confirmational bias which means it will try to tell the person asking what they want to hear.

    I posted a link on the subject on the thread in question before I stepped back from it.

    AI is an area I worked in for 2 years so I got to know how untrustworthy it is capable of being, not in a malicious way but in trying to keep you using it. The writers learned from social media that confirmational bias keeps you hooked on their product and thus making them money.

Children
  • in reply to Iain

    The other problem is I think they are probabilistic models based on source data, which presupposes the wisdom of crowds is true. If, say, 90% of the time in it's source data the answer is x, it will serve up answer x. But if 90% of comments were wrong it will not know that.

    It seems helpful for specific yes/no technical questions, but in areas of interpretation or opinion, it is just presenting you with the most likely answer based on what it knows, and based on what you feed into it.

    As politicians know well, the impression you give can be highly influenced by what you leave out.