Trump Signs Another Executive Order on Governmental AI Development (zdnet.com) 62
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order that aims to guide how federal agencies adopt artificial intelligence (AI) as part of efforts to build public trust in the government using this technology. From a report: The order itself directs federal agencies to be guided by nine principles when designing, developing, acquiring, and using AI. These principles emphasise that AI use by federal agencies be lawful; purposeful and performance-driven; accurate, reliable, and effective; safe, secure, and resilient; understandable; responsible and traceable; regularly monitored; transparent; and accountable. To implement these principles, the order directs the Office of Management and Budget to create a roadmap by the end of May 2021 for how the government will better support the use of AI. This roadmap will include a schedule for engaging with the public and timelines for finalising relevant policy guidance. The order also calls on agencies to continue to use voluntary consensus standards developed with industry participation. "This order recognises the potential for AI to improve government operations, such as by reducing outdated or duplicative regulations, enhancing the security of federal information systems, and streamlining application processes," Trump said in a statement. Federal agencies will also be required to prepare an inventory of AI use cases, as well as review and assess these use cases for consistency. The General Services Administration, meanwhile, has been directed to establish an AI track within the Presidential Innovation Fellows program to attract experts from industry and academia to work within agencies to further the design, development, acquisition, and use of AI in government.
What's happening (Score:1)
Trump signing stuff that makes sense? Did I wake up in an alternate dimension?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's happening (Score:5, Informative)
He's also attempting to "pre-pardon" himself and his family before he leaves office. Not sure why he thinks that is necessary....
Maybe the wrong question? Maybe more why does he think it will benefit him given that the states are already coming after him?
Some of the crimes his family committed are state crimes, but most of the obvious and important ones are Federal - e.g. the unjust enrichment [nbcnews.com] / foreign emoluments [washingtonpost.com] and similar. Just as one obvious example, many man foreign dignitaries have been staying at Trump hotels [nbcnews.com] with a clear expectation that they get benefits from that. Getting rid of the Federal crimes might not get everyone clear of prison time but it means there's lots less leverage in prosecuting his family's other crimes as well so it will make it more difficult for the states to prove things and make it much more likely he can plea bargain away most of his sentences.
Remember the Trump "family" is, in many ways, much closer an organised crime syndicate than a normal family, but legally most of it is seen as a corporation - he'll get the kind of justice reserved in the States for the ultra-rich and corporates. No chance of life for a slice of pizza [smh.com.au] in this case.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's happening (Score:5, Informative)
He also stopped the US involvement in Afghanistan and Syria wars.
No, he didn't [nytimes.com].
He also tried to shut down the H1B program.
Only temporarily [shrm.org].
He also tried to make hospitals post their prices for services on their websites.
As a hand-waving distraction from his constant attempts to destroy the ACA without an adequate replacement, yes. Posting prices doesn't help those who cannot afford health care to begin with.
But Orange Man Bad, right?
Correct. He is the worst president in history.
Don't worry, once Biden gets in power again things in DC will be back to "normal".
Shitty, but better than this.
And you will have no right to complain ever again, because you want it that way.
That might be how it works in the country that pays you fifty cents to write this shit, but not here in America, where we have freedom of speech.
Re:What's happening (Score:4, Informative)
Posting prices doesn't help those who cannot afford health care to begin with.
Transparent pricing creates competitive pressure to lower prices.
Lower prices help people who currently can't afford healthcare.
Re: What's happening (Score:2)
It won't help the people who still won't be able to afford health care, whose numbers are large and growing.
Re: (Score:3)
It won't help the people who still won't be able to afford health care
If someone can't afford something, then, by definition, the price is higher than they can afford.
So lower prices will help them. With lower prices, either they can buy healthcare directly, health insurance will be cheaper, more employers can afford to provide health insurance, or public healthcare will be more popular since it requires fewer taxes.
Over the last 20 years, healthcare costs in America have gone up 400%. But cosmetic surgery, which is not covered by most insurance policies, and thus has upfro
Re: (Score:1)
If someone can't afford something, then, by definition, the price is higher than they can afford. So lower prices will help them.
That does not change the fact that there will still be lots of people who cannot afford the new lowered price. I don't think anyone is arguing against transparent pricing. They are arguing, however, that health care should be a basic right of every human being.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the same logic apply to food and housing? Are they less important than medical care?
Re: What's happening (Score:2)
The same does apply to food and housing.
If your basic needs are not met, then your supposed rights are a joke at your expense.
Re: (Score:2)
So, do you think all three should be provided by government in a single-payer model? Or that the government should have punitive taxes (or fines) for people who do not get the kind of food and housing that bureaucrats in Washington DC think are good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
I think that either UBI or mass killings are inevitable, and national health is absolutely necessary.
Re: What's happening (Score:2)
Re: What's happening (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of basic medical care could be paid for out of pocket by the vast majority of people if we just eliminated "insurance" and used real insurance for catastrophic coverage.
The costs of the whole system will come down substantially with a single payer health care system for all, and skip the insurance BS.
Re: (Score:3)
That's only true if you can actually shop around for the lowest price.
Unfortunately for medicine, that is often not the case. When you're unconscious or having a serious emergency, you don't get to shop around. When only one hospital in the area does a procedure, you don't get to shop around. If there's only one hospital in the area, same. If your insurance only has one hospital in-network, same.
But that's not the worst part. What you said is technically true, but in practice false.
The reasons this is pract
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of medical care is scheduled, not ER visits - you can choose your doctor beforhand, you can choose your clinic/hospital before your procedure, etc.
There's a reason the ER is only a tiny fraction of a hospital, and hospitals make their money on planned procedures, not the ER.
Re: What's happening (Score:2)
People who cannot afford health care overwhelmingly only go for ER visits.
Re: (Score:2)
Some care is scheduled. An annual checkup? No problem, but the cost of a simple office visit isn't a huge expense and it's unlikely to vary much between doctors anyway.
When you get into trouble is when the doctor tells you to get certain tests and tells you to go to certain test facilities. I suppose you could push back and say you want to shop around for someone else who can do the tests cheaper, but that seems like a lot of effort for what I suspect is very little reward and most people have other thin
Re: (Score:2)
Transparent pricing creates competitive pressure to lower prices.
How? I mean maybe if like you can just walk over to some hospital down the street. But I mean they don't build Hospitals like fucking McDonalds for goodness sake. You take the hospital that's only fifteen miles from you or you take the next hospital that's eighty-six miles from you. Not everyone lives in an area where they're plopping down hospitals left and right.
Additionally, hospitals are free to code things in different ways. It's not like you look down the menu and pick "triple by-pass surgery val
Re: (Score:2)
I feel blessed. There are 2 completely different hospitals near me on the same street just a couple miles apart.
Still, when I went to one of them it's not like there would have been any way to compare prices.
Imagine calling them up, describing a few symptoms and asking how much the bill would be if you were treated there. I may be crazy, but I think they're going to say "It depends" or "We'll have to see you to figure that out".
Even if you could get a menu, it would be difficult to make sense of.
Imagine j
Re:What's happening (Score:5, Informative)
He also stopped the US involvement in Afghanistan and Syria wars
I’m not sure what you mean by "stopped US involvement in Afghanistan". If you mean he sent 4,000 more troops since 2016, then you would be correct. As for Syria, by "stopping" meant abandoning a key ally in the region to die while sending more troops, you would also be right. Face it the man lies all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"An Ambassador, NOWHERE in the chain of command was responsible for playing ‘shell games’ and hiding troop numbers”
So either you did not understand that or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. The simple fact is an ambassador is not part of the DoD.
Re: (Score:1)
He also stopped the US involvement in Afghanistan and Syria wars
I’m not sure what you mean by "stopped US involvement in Afghanistan". If you mean he sent 4,000 more troops since 2016, then you would be correct. As for Syria, by "stopping" meant abandoning a key ally in the region to die while sending more troops, you would also be right. Face it the man lies all the time.
Lets see there is much more to it than just the fiasco that is the Khyber Pass: In the case of the Syrian conflict, the real problem has always been the close proximity to the Kurds, who for a very long time Saddam had oppressed and murdered enough to keep the potential oil of his country from falling into the hands of his enemies: who were just about everyone else on the planet except perhaps Turkey in a strange way and the snakes in Pakistan that ride the fence by letting the Taliban hold sway in the Nort
Re: (Score:2)
Happens once in a blue moon. I'm honestly surprised he doesn't appear to have done anything to empower technoracism / prevent testing for racial bias. which would've been in line with what he's done on the 1619 project and anti-racism training for government employees. Maybe this bill didn't cross Stephen Miller's desk.
He also funded vaccine development in the middle of a pandemic, like any leader who wasn't a total shitbird would have done without a second thought, so all glory for any vaccine development
Tweets vs laws (Score:1)
Trump writes his own Tweets. We all know the kind of stuff he says on Twitter.
The laws he's signed, including EOs, aren't written by him and generally have been pretty good. Not that I agree with all of them, of course, but pretty good. The economic results of the policies he signed (but did not write!) were of course incredible, until COVID fucked everything up.
Re: (Score:2)
It does sound reasonably sane, for a wonder. It is still grotesque Executive overreach to create new laws. The Congress and/or Judiciary need to stomp down hard on executive orders.
IOW (Score:2)
So, they must be "understandable"... well, that leaves NN's out of it, inasmuch as what they will do once trained isn't usually predictable except statistically.
Back to algorithms, then...
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding them statistically is sufficient to claim understanding, at least as the word is commonly used. Nobody has omniscience, so some percentage of certainty is considered understanding.
What's more interesting here IMO than some substanceless rules on AI is that this is something better served by legislation than an executive order, so it's yet another senseless EO from the guy who has issued the most EOs in history, and who complained endlessly about the last guy's EOs.
Re: (Score:2)
so it's yet another senseless EO from the guy who has issued the most EOs in history, and who complained endlessly about the last guy's EOs.
But isn't that Trump's typical MO. He also complained about Obama playing golf all the time and it turns out that he played WAY more golf while in office than Obama ever did. At least Obama didn't gain financially by playing on his own golf courses.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/n... [forbes.com]
https://thegolfnewsnet.com/gol... [thegolfnewsnet.com]
https://trumpgolfcount.com/ [trumpgolfcount.com]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/25... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When Obama golfed, he had all the same expenses as Trump, you're just upset that trump owned the golf courses he visited? Seriously?
Were you upset when Biden charged the secret service rent to use his pool house to provide him security? I bet you were.
https://www.seattletimes.com/n... [seattletimes.com]
To their credit, the Clintons did not charge the secret service rent:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
For every additional dollar Trump collected by golfing at his own course, he likely lost money when they kept other golfers o
Re: IOW (Score:2)
"When Obama golfed, he had all the same expenses as Trump,"
He wasn't personally enriching himself through the office, which is illegal. And he didn't do it as often either, though Trump certainly complained about how often he golfed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Decision Tree is held as the "explainable" ML model, but suppose to meet the accuracy requirements, your system needs a random forest of 1024 tree
Re: (Score:2)
For reference, human decision-making is unreliable, inscrutable, and untraceable.
I came here to make a similar point. This effectively says, "Don't make, buy, or deploy good AI."
Obviously Trump didn't come up with this idea and write the text. The big question is who did, and what was their goal?
Re: (Score:1)
~fyngyrz
So, they must be "understandable"
Nice catch of a qualifier that's likely a conflation of TOSs. This "order" (I'm sorry, sir, but this is an Arby's) is a lurch for relevancy to run again when a nearly unworkable compromise will still be headlines four years from now.
Re: (Score:2)
what they will do once trained isn't usually predictable except statistically.
The same is true of humans.
Re: (Score:2)
And "traceable". This is the reason I believe Factor Tables (see my sig below) may be better than NN's for domains that require traceability and explanations of results. They are less "automatic" than NN's, but provide the necessarily transparency of computations and worker task regimentation.
NN trial runs can still be useful to determine how best to split up tasks in to subtasks (such as the filter layers), but once that's determined, factor table principles can manage these layers and sub-units better bec
Forced labor by people for AI (Score:3)
From the guidance"According to the guidance, the idea is to ensure that agencies do not introduce regulations and rules that "hamper AI innovation and growth"."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-... [whitehouse.gov]
https://www.techradar.com/news... [techradar.com]
https://www.zdnet.com/article/... [zdnet.com]
Re: (Score:1)
As people are getting increasingly tired of being blocked by CAPTCHA/reCAPTCHA for ever longer periods of time for the sake of training AI
Try Leisure Suit Larry at age 8, or so. Geesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Historical Survey of Privacy by Ferenstein (Score:2)
Another illegal executive order (Score:1)
According to Republicans, executive orders are both illegal and un-constitutional.
But I guess when you have the power to do something about these illegalities it's only worth speaking up about it when the other guy does it.
Stop trolling, things are divisive enough (Score:2)
No, it is NOT the position of Republicans that "executive orders are both illegal and un-constitutional" and it has NEVER been the position of Republicans. ALL presidents in US History have used executive orders. You apparently lack the ability to notice the DETAILS of any argument and possibly do not understand what an "executie order" IS.
Here's what an executive order is:
In the USA we have one branch of government (the legislative branch, which is the congress) that writes the bills and provides the fundi
Re: (Score:2)
More bullshit. Here you go [foxnews.com].
"We think we have standing better than any other state to be able to assert this claim against the president," [Governor] Abbott told Fox. "We have a president who feels completely unrestrained by the Constitution of America."
Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Arizonaâ(TM)s Maricopa County, has already filed a similar suit and called Obamaâ(TM)s moves "unconstitutional."
And another [mcclatchydc.com].
"The presidentâ(TM)s decision to bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of unlawful immigrants is unconstitutional and a threat to our democracy," McCaul said at the time.
And another [wjtv.com].
WASHINGTON (MEDIA GENERAL) - Republican leaders rejoiced on Tuesday as the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will consider the case against President Obamaâ(TM)s executive action to shield 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
"Pres. Obama's executive amnesty is unconstitutional. I hope #SCOTUS upholds the 5th Circuitâ(TM)s decision," tweeted House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.)
And another [washingtontimes.com].
"His first impulse is always to take rights away from law-abiding citizens, and itâ(TM)s wrong," Mr. Bush said on "Fox News Sunday.â "And to use executive powers he doesnâ(TM)t have is a pattern that is quite dangerous. Itâ(TM)s not a surprise that people donâ(TM)t believe that our government is working on their behalf anymore when you have a president that recklessly uses executive authority that the Constitution doesn't provide him."
And another [ibtimes.com].
Many of the Republican presidential candidates lashed out at President Barack Obama for his use of executive orders during Thursday night's debate. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that if he is elected president, he would repeal all of President Barack Obama's "unconstitutional" executive orders on day one.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Donald Trump also criticized the president, with Bush saying the orders were "illegal" and Trump saying executive orders were not how the president was supposed to operate. This is a common concern about Republicans, who have frequently complained that Obama has abused his executive power.
Rubio: On my first day of office we will repeal all of Obamas unconstitutional executive orders. #GOPDebate — Katie Watson (@kathrynw5) January 15, 2016
Would you like to try again?
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't actually read the quotes you copied, did you? Because if you had, there is a teeny tiny chance that you would have noticed that you were making his point for him.
Which isn't to say that you couldn't have found better examples of quotes that would, on their face, seem to support your theory. Those quotes are certainly out there - so many, in fact, that I'm amazed that you only managed to find a single example, and that one is questionable because...
When people talk about the same topic often, th
Thanks for confirming my post... (Score:1)
You saved me a bunch of time looking for links of Republicans condemning illegal executive orders (orders by Obama to executive branch employees which did NOT tell them how to implement immigration laws, but actually told them to NOT enforce those laws). The Obama actions you referred to are exactly the sort the Republicans DO oppose precisely because they actually ARE unconstitutional (in the plain textual sense, not in the sense of some particular judge's ruling).
When Richard Nixon was in office, the Dem
Ironic. (Score:2)
Extremely unethical person in almost every way he conducts himself. Yet he's trying to tell the government how to be ethical. Good luck with that.
What's wrong with these 9 principles (Score:1)
What more principles that you would add?
These 9 principles of federal AI use would be:
1. lawful
2. purposeful and performance-driven
3. accurate, reliable, and effective
4. safe, secure, and resilient
5. understandable
6. responsible and traceable
7. regularly monitored
8. transparent
9. accountable
. . . your input . . .
How did they explain to Trump what it was about (Score:2)