18,803 research outputs found
Strange Loops: Apparent versus Actual Human Involvement in Automated Decision-Making
The era of AI-based decision-making fast approaches, and anxiety is mounting about when, and why, we should keep “humans in the loop” (“HITL”). Thus far, commentary has focused primarily on two questions: whether, and when, keeping humans involved will improve the results of decision-making (making them safer or more accurate), and whether, and when, non-accuracy-related values—legitimacy, dignity, and so forth—are vindicated by the inclusion of humans in decision-making. Here, we take up a related but distinct question, which has eluded the scholarship thus far: does it matter if humans appear to be in the loop of decision-making, independent from whether they actually are? In other words, what is stake in the disjunction between whether humans in fact have ultimate authority over decision-making versus whether humans merely seem, from the outside, to have such authority?
Our argument proceeds in four parts. First, we build our formal model, enriching the HITL question to include not only whether humans are actually in the loop of decision-making, but also whether they appear to be so. Second, we describe situations in which the actuality and appearance of HITL align: those that seem to involve human judgment and actually do, and those that seem automated and actually are. Third, we explore instances of misalignment: situations in which systems that seem to involve human judgment actually do not, and situations in which systems that hold themselves out as automated actually rely on humans operating “behind the curtain.” Fourth, we examine the normative issues that result from HITL misalignment, arguing that it challenges individual decision-making about automated systems and complicates collective governance of automation
When silver glitters more than gold: Bootstrapping an Italian part-of-speech tagger for Twitter
We bootstrap a state-of-the-art part-of-speech tagger to tag Italian Twitter
data, in the context of the Evalita 2016 PoSTWITA shared task. We show that
training the tagger on native Twitter data enriched with little amounts of
specifically selected gold data and additional silver-labelled data scraped
from Facebook, yields better results than using large amounts of manually
annotated data from a mix of genres.Comment: Proceedings of the 5th Evaluation Campaign of Natural Language
Processing and Speech Tools for Italian (EVALITA 2016
- …