Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Not available on lingo.lol.
lingo.lol is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A place for linguists, philologists, and other lovers of languages.

Administered by:

Server stats:

68
active users

lingo.lol: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.4.1

#chi2024

0 posts0 participants0 posts today
Continued thread
Jacy Reese Anthis :verified:

The key point is: a lot of people are just too optimistic about AI ethics and safety right now. However, there is a ton of surface area for more contextualized, adaptive approaches! You can read our HEAL #CHI2024 paper on ArXiv: arxiv.org/abs/2406.03198 We hope you find it useful!

arXiv.orgThe Impossibility of Fair LLMsThe need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness, such as group fairness and fair representations, and find that their application to LLMs faces inherent limitations. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to LLMs or presents a notion of fairness that is intractable for LLMs, primarily due to the multitudes of populations affected, sensitive attributes, and use cases. To address these challenges, we develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases: the criticality of context, the responsibility of LLM developers, and the need for stakeholder participation in an iterative process of design and evaluation. Moreover, it may eventually be possible and even necessary to use the general-purpose capabilities of AI systems to address fairness challenges as a form of scalable AI-assisted alignment.
*
Arie van Deursen

At CHI earlier this month: “Is Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions”.

> Our analysis shows that 52% of ChatGPT answers contain incorrect information and 77% are verbose.

> … our user study participants … overlooked the misinformation in the ChatGPT answers 39% of the time.

dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3613904

ACM ConferencesIs Stack Overflow Obsolete? An Empirical Study of the Characteristics of ChatGPT Answers to Stack Overflow Questions | Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
#chi2024#StackOverflow#chatGPT
Continued thread
Florian Daiber

Kind reminder: We'll gather today after the last paper session near the registration desk. The last paper session ends at 17:20 so we'll get a group photo then leave about 17:35 to give people time to gather. You can either wear your jogging kit or change in one of the bathrooms. With our group size, it wouldn't be bad for us to leave in waves. #chi2024 #running

Replied in thread
Chat Wacharamanotham

Not at #CHI2024, but still interested in experimenting with new review methods, open practices, and interactive publications?

Join us in the **hybrid** SIG meeting by
@jovi
(the Journal of Visualization and Interaction) on 16 May. Time & link: see

TrendingLive feeds
About