I'm recreating the "Gov" - not really; just my idea of it, globally e.g.: ua.gov-ai.co / ua.ai-gov.co/ ng.gov-ai.co / ng.ai-gov.co - most progress made so far w/ CBER and DDP's
* HHS -> FDA -> CBER
It's important IMO (IMO only NOT AN EXPERT) because it helps you understand first principles better. As fundamentals change, its helps me to reevaluate these things even though I know nothing will ever come of them.
I am 422 agencies in so far, hoping to finish in-time for Juneteenth. Cant post her because........... but yea.
It’s striking how corporate complicity in systematic oppression can be sanitized over time until egregious patterns only resurface as political talking points.
In 6th grade i stole my teachers car to go get a girl some lemon heads...this was just the latest such incident so my teachers said I had to stand in the corner for the rest of the year; but my computer teacher Ms. Melton said I could spend the time in the computer lab and she started teaching me JS. Then on work study day she sent me to her friends at a local ISP and they gave me an internship etc... etc... 30 years later and I am a software eng.
I am 41, JS was released 29 years ago; 6th grade is 11—12 years old so my math might be a little off. But it was JS, I remember because it was new and i thought it was so cool to do alerts, LOL.
> I think part of what's been happening here is that the hubris of the AI startups is really showing through.
I think it its somewhat reductive to assign this "hubris" to "AI startups". I would posit that this hubris is more akin to the superiority we feel as human beings.
I have heard people say several times that they "treat AI like a Jr. employee", I think that within the context of a project AI should be treated based on the level if contribution. If AI is the expert, I am not going to approach it as if I am an SME that knows exactly what to ask. I am going to try and focus on the thing. know best, and ask questions around that to discover and learn the best approach. Obviously there is nuance here that is outside the scope of this discussion, but these two fundamentally different approaches have yield materially different outcomes in my experience.
Absolutely not. When giving tasks to an AI, we supply them with context, examples of what to do, examples of what not to do, and we clarify their role and job. We stick with them as they work and direct them accordingly when something goes wrong.
I've no idea what would happen if we treated a junior developer like that.
> The problem I find in many cases is that people are restrained by their imagination of what's possible, so they target existing workflows for AI.
I concur and would like to add that they are also restrained by the limitations of existing "systems" and our implicit and explicit expectations of said system. I am currently attempting to mitigate the harm done by this restriction by focusing on and starting with a first principal analysis of the problem being solved before starting the work, for example; lets take a well established and well documented system like the SSA.
When attempting to develop, refactor, extend etc... such a system; what is the proper thought process. As I see it, there are two paths:
Path 1:
a) Breakdown the existing workflows
b) Identify key performance indicators (KPIs) that align with your business goals
c) Collect and analyze data related to those KPIs using BPM tools
d) Find the most expensive worst performing workflows
e) Automate them E2E w/ interface contracts on either side
This approach locks you into to existing restrictions of the system, workflows, implementation etc...
Path 2:
a) Analyze system to understand goal in terms of 1st principals, e.g: What is the mission of the SSA? To move money based on conditional logic.
b) What systems / data structures are closest to this function and does the legacy system reflect this at its core e.g.: SSA should just be a ledger IMO
c) If Yes, go to "Path 1" and if No go to "D"
d) Identify the core function of the system, the critical path (core workflow) and all required parties
e) Make MVP which only does the bare min
By following path 2 and starting off with an AI analysis of the actual problem and not the problem as it exist as a solution within the context of an existing system, it is my opinion that the previous restrictions have been avoided.
Note: Obviously this is a gross oversimplification of the project management process and there are usually external factors that weigh in and decide which path is possible for a given initiative, my goal here was just to highlight a specific deviation from my normal process that has yielded benefits so far in my own personal experience.
I think you might be overcomplicating the problem in a way that actually makes it harder to solve, not easier. AI governance and optimizing business processes sounds cool and all, but we don’t need to "engineer" a way to address poverty. We already have a simple, effective, well researched solution...just give people money.
We need to be careful of this notion that social ills caused by prioritizing "growth" over people are intractable problems that require us to throw technology at them. It's often a convenient smokescreen from those that don't want the problems addressed at all. And we do their work for them if we play along.
Perhaps, but the distribution of said funds has always been rought with fraud. I suppose you do have a point but if it were that easy, why is it not done? I am simply proposing another way, and honestly its a pretty said day where proposing and idea on a forum is met with such vitriol. I'm also working on https://crohns.ai/ and have had some really good feedback, should this also just be done by handing out money? The approach I am hearing from everyone here is that the world should just STFU and allow Trump and Musk to handle it because they are the big boys so everyone else should shut up. While agree that you all have the right to feel that way, it's simply not a reality the rest of us have to blindly accept. Also pretty said that simply "Trying" has become so uncool on a site like HN.
One can understand hyperbole and still not know that you were being emphatically hyperbolic instead of literally hyperbolic. Sometimes the hyperbolic statement is also literally true. This is a place of academic types who are used to being careful with hyperbole for this very reason. (In this particular case, the contention is also with the use of the word "only", which suggests a factual basis rather than opinion, so it's not necessarily an issue with hyperbole. But... meh, people can read better, too.)
Not trying to say the point you intended to make is invalid or even that your word choice is invalid, just that the literal interpretation of your writing is also a valid one. Especially among people who don't know you personally. That said, I also believe that the other commenter could and should have read a stronger interpretation of your words (such as if "only" was replaced with "best" or "my most preferred") and replied to that or not replied at all.
Really, OK; I digress because at the point you imply that: "Yes. The only solution is magic. Well done." is such a high brow and intellectual comment and I a'm just too dumb to I understand it - this obviously is a waste of both our time.
> you imply that: "Yes. The only solution is magic. Well done." is such a high brow and intellectual comment and I a'm just too dumb to I understand it
My friend, I think that comment was utter trash and they shouldn't have posted it.
That said, interpreting a comment literally, as they did, is a valid way to interpret a comment. I disagree with how they chose to respond to your comment, not strictly with how they interpreted it.
Lastly, you are not too dumb to understand anything, let alone what I've written. Do whatever you normally do to unwind and read my comments again tomorrow if you don't believe me. Anyone who tells you that you are inadequate in any way is being abusive.
