Director of National Intelligence Gabbard says that a AI told her what information should be classified.

[Anonymous]

The parade of incompetence continues.

Director of National Intelligence Gabbard says that a AI told her what information should be classified and declassified.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/tulsi-gabbard-admits-to-asking-ai-what-to-classify-in-jfk-files/

[Anonymous]

AI is expensive. She needed a Magic 8 Ball and a Ouji Board (for tough ones).

Such waste!

[Anonymous]

Omg is she uploading docs into AI?

[Anonymous]

PravdaGPT?

[Anonymous]

Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

Umm, no, you must not know how AI works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

+1. Classification standards are written standards that are totally appropriate for an AI to be taught and then as it to classify documents based on what it's learned.

Of course you need human validation of the decisions, but this is a good us of AI.

I have a lot of issues with Gabbard, but this isn't one of them, and a mocking story about this says more about the writer than Gabbard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

+1. Classification standards are written standards that are totally appropriate for an AI to be taught and then as it to classify documents based on what it's learned.

Of course you need human validation of the decisions, but this is a good us of AI.

I have a lot of issues with Gabbard, but this isn't one of them, and a mocking story about this says more about the writer than Gabbard.

^^"good use," not "us".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

+1. Classification standards are written standards that are totally appropriate for an AI to be taught and then as it to classify documents based on what it's learned.

Of course you need human validation of the decisions, but this is a good us of AI.

I have a lot of issues with Gabbard, but this isn't one of them, and a mocking story about this says more about the writer than Gabbard.

What AI system would be cleared for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

+1. Classification standards are written standards that are totally appropriate for an AI to be taught and then as it to classify documents based on what it's learned.

Of course you need human validation of the decisions, but this is a good us of AI.

I have a lot of issues with Gabbard, but this isn't one of them, and a mocking story about this says more about the writer than Gabbard.

What AI system would be cleared for this?

Probably nothing off the shelf. It would have be modified or purpose built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Umm, this would be a great use for a specificlly trained AI system.

Umm, no, you must not know how AI works

It's artificial intelligence. That makes it smarter than any human in the Trump administration.