Google Apologises For Photos App's Racist Blunder

Mark Wilson writes: Google has issued an apology after the automatic tagging feature of its Photos apps labeled a black couple as "gorillas". This is not the first time an algorithm has been found to have caused racial upset. Earlier in the year Flickr came under fire after its system tagged images of concentration camps as sports venues and black people as apes. The company was criticized on social networks after a New York software developer questioned the efficacy of Google's algorithm. Accused of racism, Google said that it was "appalled" by what had happened, branding it as "100% not OK".

Comments

alogrithms aren't racist

[Anonymous Coward]

Alogorithms aren't racist, and teaching a computer to visually recognize objects is hard. Move along.

Re:alogrithms aren't racist

[ScentCone]

It isn't a racist outcome. It is the outcome of a flawed algorithm.

You're not paying attention. These days, outcomes that have nothing to do with intention, purpose, or simple transparent standards, but which happen to lean statistically towards results not in perfect balance with skin color as a function of population (though, only in one direction) ... the process must be considered racist. The whole "disparate impact" line of thinking is based on this. If you apply a standard (say, physical strength or attention to detail or quick problem solving, whatever) to people applying to work as, say, firefighters ... if (REGARDLESS of the mix of people who apply) you get more white people getting the jobs, then the standards must surely be racist, even if nobody can point to a single feature of those standards that can be identified as such. Outcomes now retro-actively re-invent the character of whoever sets a standard, and finds them to be a racist. Never mind that holding some particular group, based on their skin color, to some LOWER standard is actually racist, and incredibly condescending. But too bad: outcomes dictate racist-ness now, not policies, actions, purpose, motivation, or objective standards.

So, yeah. The algorithm, without having a single "racist" feature to it, can still be considered racist. Because that pleases the Big SJW industry.

It's the same thinking that says black people aren't smart enough to get a free photo ID from their state, and so laws requiring people to prove who they are when they're casting votes for the people who will govern all of us are, of course, labeled as racist by SJW's sitting in their Outrage Seminar meetings. It's hard to believe things have come that far, but they have.

In over news

[oobayly]

Google's algorithm also identified photos of some sunburnt Essex chavettes on the beach as Yorkshire pigs. A Google spokesperson said "no apology if necessary - it's an accurate assessment".

Re:Accepting Responsibility

[bluefoxlucid]

...NO IT ISN'T, YOU ASSFACE!

Let's see, we'll do this completely-innocent thing, which is hard, but helps society. Suddenly, hard thing does some harmless,amusing, not-entirely-predicted thing, and people whine about it. OMG, LET'S LEGITIMIZE THEIR STUPIDITY AS A VALID OPINION!

No, you're admitting fault here for something that is NOT YOUR FAULT. You're admitting bad behavior and bad decisions for something that was good behavior and good decision-making, but produced a bad outcome.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE SHIT SCHOOL SYSTEMS!!! If we have 60% success rate and improve the school system by broad, visible measures to give a better education and improve to an 85% success rate, 15% OF PEOPLE WILL CRY THAT OUR NEW EDUCATION SYSTEM FUCKED OVER THEIR KIDS! Someone will point to all the failures, create a collage, and claim we're totally incompetent!

The appropriate response to bitchwhining about this non-issue is to tell people to stop fucking whining.

Re:that's right

[magarity]

"Ape" is a general language term that can be used by different people to specify quite different groups of creatures; it's more correct to say we're all hominids.

Re:Accepting Responsibility

[DigiShaman]

It's part of the cult of PC (Political Correctness) to carry out self-flagellation as a method of atonement.

Re: lol

[Anonymous Coward]

The truth is that there are a ton of entitled idiots who believe they have the right to be offended, and gigaton of idiots who chose to oblige. That's why we don't have nice things anymore.

Re:Casper is Concerned

[war4peace]

Searched for "dog" in my Google Photos. 6 photos came up, all of my kids or kid and wife. I don't care. It's an algorithm.
Searched for "seal" in my Google Photos. Only one came up, and it's of my elder kid. I don't care. It's an algorithm.
People who feel "offended" by an algorithm are batshit crazy.

Re:that's right

[Ramze]

No, "Ape" is a very specific term used to specify members of Hominoidea. It is unfortunate many are ignorant of the meaning of the term and use it improperly to include monkeys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Humans are apes - specifically, great apes. (aka Hominidae aka "hominids"). "Hominids" simply means human-like. It used to mean only humans, then it included other extinct human-like creatures and now it generally includes all hominidae. While "hominid" (or alternatively "great ape") is a more specific term, it is certainly NOT a more correct term, merely the Family of the SuperFamily.

One could say that humans are mammals and it would be no less correct. Humans are animals, chordates, mammals, primates, apes, and also great apes.

It's unfortunate that the Google facial recognition software was not aware that humans don't like being reminded that they are indeed very closely related to other great apes and could easily be confused with gorillas by a non-human intelligence. Our indignance at the notion we're apes that look a lot like gorillas is rather silly -- like zebras being offended at being miscategorized as ordinary horses.

Granted, I understand the racist implication that those flagged erroneously as gorillas are somehow less human than others. Thankfully, the computer isn't racist. It merely wasn't sophisticated enough to discern the difference given the input, the algorithm, and its training.

I'm impressed it figured out the object in the photo was a living thing and got the kingdom, phylum, class, order, superfamily, family and sub-family correct. If it had chosen chimp or bonobo, it would have been even closer.

Heck, check out this comparison of a gorilla baby and a human baby -- no one would have blinked an eye if the software said the gorilla was a human baby.
http://intentblog.com/wp-conte...

Another cute gorilla baby -- a bit older:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly...

Mod parent down

[SpaceXXX]

This person is using "blacklisted" word. Mod it down.

Re:I know how this is going to be fixed...

[Hevel-Varik]

No your comment is sad. Go and view the tagged pictures. And tell me that there is no similarity. Your lying or have so deeply fooled yourself that you have difficulty thinking un-good thoughts.

Amazing, modern man believes man descended from apes and when a computer algorithm mistakes a black colored and ape shaped ape descendant for, you know, an ape, it's because the photo alg guys are a bunch of frat boys.

It's sad the world is bending over backwards affecting this total bullshit 'how COULD this happen!!!!,' though really it isn't the world. It's media and blog bubble who are encouraged, nay, validated! by the corporate "This. Is. 100% not. ok" but show the pic and explain the story off-line and see how normal mankind really still is.