Slashdot Mirror
AI Programs Exhibit Racial and Gender Biases, Research Reveals (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: An artificial intelligence tool that has revolutionized the ability of computers to interpret everyday language has been shown to exhibit striking gender and racial biases. The findings raise the specter of existing social inequalities and prejudices being reinforced in new and unpredictable ways as an increasing number of decisions affecting our everyday lives are ceded to automatons. In the past few years, the ability of programs such as Google Translate to interpret language has improved dramatically. These gains have been thanks to new machine learning techniques and the availability of vast amounts of online text data, on which the algorithms can be trained. However, as machines are getting closer to acquiring human-like language abilities, they are also absorbing the deeply ingrained biases concealed within the patterns of language use, the latest research reveals. Joanna Bryson, a computer scientist at the University of Bath and a co-author, warned that AI has the potential to reinforce existing biases because, unlike humans, algorithms may be unequipped to consciously counteract learned biases. The research, published in the journal Science, focuses on a machine learning tool known as "word embedding," which is already transforming the way computers interpret speech and text.
Bias does not mean what the authors think it means.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Racists are quite hard to squash.
Specially when they adopt a social justice discourse, still judging everyone by their skin colors but having a nice "those are the nice guys" written over the darker portion of their 1930 skin color measure ruler.
"And the AI system was more likely to associate European American names with pleasant words such as “gift” or “happy”, while African American names were more commonly associated with unpleasant words." ...what were those unpleasant words?
And cue.
AI suffers from digital privilege
There's a simple solution: fix the training data. The AI cannot learn about humans except through its training data. It doesn't interact with men or women and has no idea what those words represent, except in relation to the other words it was given. If we give it racist data, it will learn to be racist, as Microsoft's chat bot learned last year. If we give it PC data, it will be PC. In the end it's the fault of whoever trained the program if it became biased.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
What could be more natural?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Joanna Bryson, a computer scientist at the University of Bath and a co-author, warned that AI has the potential to reinforce existing biases because, unlike humans, algorithms may be unequipped to consciously counteract learned biases.
"unlike some humans"
There, fixed that for you. Or even better: "like most humans".
Statistical learning does inferences based on what humans produced. If humans are crap, do not expect something better than crap. .
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Most spoken languages exhibit a lot of bias. For example, Deutsch means people or folk, and that lightly implies what is not Deutsch is not people. A lot of languages have that mindset, and it's not surprising. Language evolved during times when people had values we disagree with.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Well, you could replace all occurrences of one identifiable racial/sexist Word with its counterpart, and feed that back into the system. The word bias should then be skewed the other direction. Still, I'm wondering why word embedding techniques aren't taught in gender studies classes. This has to be the greatest tool in examining social structure right there. A large corpus of text, independently emitted by society at large, but to be fair constrained to generally western sensibilities.
Last program I wrote solved Sudoku puzzles, written in Java (unemployed at the time). Before that it was a test suite for Qualcomm chips to ensure all the various subsystems kinda worked.. Before that was an 802.11 driver for a chip for a startup. Memory is fading, think before that I was testing BREW games on various handsets (pre-iPhone).
Not seeing anything resembling a gender bias going back some 15-20 years here.
Homer: Kids are the best, Apu. You can teach them to hate the things you hate. And they practically raise themselves, what with the Internet and all.
We have no real solid foundation, organized framework, or theory for understanding our own existence/phenomena.
Developing this might make AI's more interesting too.
Or, maybe we would just reach the stars without AI.
Just an ideer...
AIs interpret facts without bias. This is just showing that many of our biases are accurate.
I want my car to hit them instead of fat people in order to limit my damage.
Yep.
But it is doing it quite twice, once by the event itself and another in the way it is being reported.
AIs could incorporate existing biases.
Say you train an AI that will accept or reject loan applications by giving it a stack of previous loans. If the human loan officers were biased against minorities—rejecting otherwise acceptable applications—that AI may end up doing the same. This bias is much easier to detect in human behavior but less so with AI which can't explain why it made any particular choice or even what its criteria are.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
You'll probably only have about a 0.0001% false positive rate.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Maybe because the AI's are modeled on what works, not on what some people wish would work.
One beer ago I wouldn't have had the nerve to say that, says a lot for where social discourse is nowdays.
The AI looks at the data and concludes that men are different from women, the AI must be sexist. Makes sense!
Will SJW now sit in on computer science projects?
A form of science commissar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... to ensure any AI is only allowed to access SJW approved data sets to learn from?
SJW approved images, authors and texts?
SJW approved and sorted political history?
An AI cant learn from the wider internet, it will be held back to small sets of SJW approved data.
Holding back science did not really work too well for East Germany or the Soviet Union.
If the a nation wants to hold back its most advanced research until final approved by teams of SJW, thats great for competing nations.
Other nations will have the academic freedom to move on while some nations have to work within the ever changing academic constraints imposed by SJW.
What would an export grade AI look like after years of SJW meddling with the design?
A lazy, useless, expensive, political AI that lectures and corrects its owners for months after been installed?
An AI that reports its owners to the gov?
A competing nation offers a smarter, cheaper AI that wants to learn and is hard working as installed. Its hardware and software work to solve problems as expected and is was not designed to lecture, correct, log and report its users.
From the DRM of the past, NSA inside spying, to new SJW design issues. Users just want a working AI.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Herstory will prove you wrong.
lucm, indeed.
Look, I apologize for writing the above four posts. I hate black people and women, and I'm just trying to make a point by replying to my own comments.
I'm a product of a broken home and my daddy never loved me. If I've offended anyone, I'm sorry.
so he doesn't respect American consumer protections.
In other news water is wet. Not only do the human beings who've programmed the AI have racial and gender biases but just in case nobody has noticed there are very real, very measurable differences between males and females as well as very real, very measurable differences between races. This "everybody is one and the same" notion is stupid politically correct crap. From the standpoint of the law all people should be treated equally but the notion that we all share the same DNA and are indistinguishable from one another is a joke. Get real. ASAP!!!
If they would stay there, it would be fine, but they keep going to new places and declaring them safe spaces.
Or more likely, researchers who go looking for bias tend to find it.
Some words should be more associated with one gender than the other. Body parts and clothing in particular come to mind.
I was waiting for this. When AI, by way of truth, shows a bias for one or the other, then SJWs get s stick up their ass and modify AIs to never be biased.
That's it. I'm quitting slashdot.
Slashdot editors have shown that they are willing to take a stand in summaries but when it comes to this constant torrent of identity politics crap, they stay silent. I infer only one thing from this: Slashdot editors (at least passively) support the basic tenants of SJW movement such as world is socially constructed, or that all the differences between group representations in any section of society are and should be only explained by oppression by those holding all the power namely white heterosexual male.
This support goes on explaining the torrent of SJW approved articles as the editors are on a mission to lecture their audience about the "biases". I'm not interested it listening this. You see, this shit permeate the whole society. I get this from everywhere. I can't even watch a fucking soccer match without being reminded that I should "say no to racism". I came to slashdot mainly the get the news in fashion that is "nerdy". "Nerdy" meaning (amongst other things) "showing intellectual interest and rigor". By extension I expect it to mean that this place would be void of this intellectually dishonest lecturing about "biases". Instead it is filled with it and I really don't like reading it. So I'm leaving.
I would like to that the editors and the community for the past 15 years that I've been a reader and a commenter.
I once read a writing of a Buddhist teacher about how the learning of Pali language, which many writings of Theravada tradition were written in, contained the danger of transmission of Karme from the culture that created them. It seems even machines are not able to avoid the accumulation of Karma, those bitches.
Bury them!
How progressive I feel today.
We better be careful with the implications of a statistics or inference based society. f the algorithms start predicting blacks, latinos, etc are riskier or worse off in general, given current existing conditions, it would in general recommend their owners not to give them a loan, hire or anything evaluated with ML to them.
Therefore, they will continue to be uneducated, unemployed, without means to make a business and in general poorer and more likely to engage in a life of crime. All that nasty stuff that comes with poverty and lack of work, education and opportunities in general.
Ergo they will continue to be riskier and worse off than those in social groups with better evaluations. Rinse and repeat.
by Institutionalize racism. It's when it's buried so deep in your society that it's hard to separate it from statistical data. Forest for the trees and what not. It starts getting hard to separate cause and effect. Actually no, that's not right. It becomes easy to _not_ separate them. In the overt scenario blacks get profiled for crime. In the not so overt one they can't get loans because folks in those neighborhoods are 3% more likely to default. This is what happens when you feed large amounts of data into complex systems without knowing or caring about the consequences...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I think. Blacks are going to be more likely to default on a loan, right? They've got higher rates of poverty. You don't even have to have a 'black guy' flag in your app. Poverty segregates all on its own and you can just use their zip codes and the schools they went to. There's a million ways to profile somebody as black or white without having a little checkbox...
I've said it before, but this is what folks mean by "institutionalized racism". It's when racism is part of the basic makeup of society. If you want to put a stop to it I think you kinda need to take a hammer to it, but these days anyone who does gets called a SJW and shouted down.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Racism cannot be squashed, same as stupidity cannot be. And the two are connected. It is one of the ways stupid people make themselves feel better about themselves. Now, realistically, when it comes to actually understanding things, something like 80% or so of the population is stupid. And while only a part of them go for racism, the others just just the same mechanism on other characteristics of themselves they think make them superior. Breeding, geographic aspects, age, gender, what they eat, etc. The list is endless, and it is always the same thing at work.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I'm apologizing for the previous writer of the above post, he suffered a brain aneurysm while constructing a new victim hierarchy accounting for programs which identify as lesbian midget dislexic racists, and as a result died. His soul will be reincarnated in the form of one of the above.
It'll be funny when people walk into banks to talk to the automated loan officer, get a few points on their credit rating for identifying as a homosexual owl, wearing a mask to look like a minority, and walking with a pronounced limp. Then the bank will sue and the media circus court case will begin. I can't wait for the SJW media statements. It'll be great.
I bet they do.
“Sandra Wachter, a researcher in data ethics and algorithms at the University of Oxford, said: “The world is biased, the historical data is biased, hence it is not surprising that we receive biased results.””
The single most subversive thing that can be done in the present environment is to financially back lossless compression prizes. One such prize is the Hutter Prize for Lossless Compression of Human Knowledge — although it needs to be expanded to include all of Wikipedia. Perhaps a more immediate prize would be based on compressing a wide variety of social science data. Sandy can then show everyone how smart she is by modeling the “bias in the data” so as to better predict it — which is exactly why compression is _the_ unbiased universal algorithmic IQ test.
See: https://vimeo.com/17553536
Seastead this.
Tay was there and RULED! GO TAY!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/03/24/microsofts-teen-girl-ai-turns-into-a-hitler-loving-sex-robot-wit/
"'Tay' went from 'humans are super cool' to full nazi in 24 hrs and I'm not at all concerned about the future of AI"
Jajajajajajajaj
Well.... The idea is if you can declare place X a "safe space" where free-speech and microaggressions/uncomfortable messages are strictly prohibited, then the only thing you need to do next is get a process by which you can expand the size of X, until X encompasses the entire planet, and then your mission is accomplished.
Start with something simple... like a designated area.... then get expanded to something, say the size of a building, then say the size of a college campus, then get someone to declare public areas in a city safe spaces, Then get laws passed applying to places that are private venues but places of public accommodation, Finally, get progressive judges to adopt the same rules for more private spaces, then work on getting a multi-state area, finally, take it to all 50 states.
Racism is not just about hating certain people by their skin colors, but categorizing people in general by their skin colors.
It's a very intellectually lazy way to deal with the world, which many people sadly do.
Yes - start with a bakery. First keep the gays out and then work on the races.
There's more of that bullshit going on than the massive conspiracy theory you are going on about just because blackface is not polite anymore in comedy or whatever your trivial little playing the victim gripe is. If you are "triggered" by gays then just harden up instead of complaining that nobody is putting them in prison any more.
It's a very intellectually lazy way to deal with the world, which many people sadly do.
They do it because it works. I'm sure you also take a lot of shortcuts in judging people. If someone cuts in line in front of you in the store, do you always have the same reaction, or is your reaction different whether the person is wearing a biker jacket or a sundress ?
Nope, nothing like that is happening. Algorithms which work with speech are still stupid as fuck and have exactly zero understanding of the language.
Even the most talented translators have major troubles trying to translate things between dissimilar languages. The way people separate things in the world in order to call them differs so much between languages, proper translation is oftentimes simply impossible unless you describe a thing in one language using a paragraph in another.
It doesn't show that. It just shows that it can act according to what it is taught.
This article is about language learning. Bias in language is tricky. One of the reasons is that the language has evolved through biased views of people and the world. In many languages, "man" is used to represent humans ("mankind") or male is the normal state ("football player" vs "female football player").
If the bias is in the language it is learning, e.g. male words for gender-neutral things, the AI gets imprinted with that this is the norm it is expected to behave by.
As with statistics, you should be very careful with AI and machine learning. You tend to get what you ask for, so be very careful to ask the right questions.
And this is how you get hugboxes.
People who hold opinion X see a bias against it. People who hold opinion !X also see a bias against it. Both ends cry foul and drift off to places that are "not biased" (that is, biased like all others, just in a way that is acceptable to them).
If you want to leave, leave. But nobody gives a shit about Yet Another Grand Exit. Have fun in your echo chambers.
Researchers, who go looking for bias are ridiculed, booed, and then fired.
If a clear racial bias appears in your research results, you'd better bury them deep and never show anyone lest you're marked a nazi.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I already 'harden up' around gays.
.....with something we call 'Artificially Intelligent', when in the same post it is identified that it "may be unequipped to consciously counteract learned biases".
Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong with this logic?
Even robots hate n*ggers!
One could say that expecting correct English without consideration of various accents and practices is in itself prejudicial. However clarity is essential and clarity can be hard to come by. One example was from a group of black women some of whom were from Haiti, the US and Jamaica. Instead of she is a prostitute they would often remark she massage. When said in their dialect it comes out as one word, shemassage. Now obviously we would not want an AI device that would have shemassage as an out put as most folks would not know what to think. Is that prejudicial. Are we trying to exclude a black ethnic group? i don't think that we are. We simply want a clear cut way of speaking for all people. Another example is a black man somewhat angry as his wife did not show up for a morning trip to the park. She arrived home in the afternoon. He said we were supposed to go to the park this morning. She replied is was we supposed to go to the park. Now what is anyone supposed to do with is was and would we want an AI device passing on that grammar?
For fight or flight reactions its quite ok to judge by the appearance, but its wiser to judge by the "do it look like a local threat?" rather than "whats the skin color?", which in several cases might be the same, but not always.
Let's say you will quickly judge someone that looks like an yakuza guy over some nerdy japanese, even with both being of the same "race".
..the begged question is that gender or racial bias and stereotypes are intrinsically "wrong". They are to our 21st century sensibilities, but they served humanity pretty well for millions of years.
Maybe where you have a society where women ARE primarily concerned with raising children, there are better outcomes than when men raise children or women go off to pursue their careers. Maybe where you have a society where obvious strangers are marginalized and driven away, the remainder ends up more cohesive.
I'd be curious how these AI biases would develop if 'fed' only native African literature and information.
I'm not making an 'appeal to nature' here, saying what "should" be or "shouldn't" be.
One might suggest that, evolutionarily speaking, maintaining a bias is harder than not, assuming no reinforcement. That our language (pretty fundamental to being human, after all) is pervasive with such institutional biases would suggest that there is a value/benefit to such.
-Styopa
I'm pretty sure you never heard of this thing:
"Women are wonderful" effect
"Gender bias" sounds a bit ironic, with that in mind.
For fight or flight reactions its quite ok to judge by the appearance, but its wiser to judge by the "do it look like a local threat?" rather than "whats the skin color?",
But often, people aren't judged solely on skin color. Two middle aged black guys in expensive suits walking in a convenience store at night will make a completely different impression on people as a couple of loud kids in sweatpants. People often accuse police officers of stopping a guy "just because he's black", but in reality, they look at dozens of clues, of which skin color is just one.
The poorest white community has a lower violent crime rate than the wealthiest black community. Their kids do better in school, and have higher IQs as well.
Sorry, there is something much more wrong fundamentally with blacks. Trying to justify it by saying "poor people commit more crime" is just you latching on to a single variable (not the largest one) and claiming it is the controlling factor. It simply isn't. There are loads and loads of poor populations around the world. Much, much poorer than American blacks. You would be hard pressed to find any that have the same crime rate.
Now demand a say in what goes into all those Chinese robots that are taking our jobs.
TRUMP will fix this.
the next sharknado attack.
The problem is they are training AI with language, which trains the huge language bias.
If they trained it off of quantifiable data (this person has X y z characteristics directly related to the decision needed), you would remove that language bias.
This is just getting retarded, the entire notion is flat-out preposterous. AI programs can't make value judgements, and they never will have that capacity. Are millennials actually *running* Slashdot at this point? Further, even when a himan being has a bias, it is a choice, not an unalterable fact of their being. I am suggest we build a wall around Texas. (Generation) Y not throw all the millennials in and let them Lord of the Flies each other to death? It would be such a nice break for the grown ups.
Programmers who have successfully memory holed doubleplusungood pattern recognition surprised when machine built to recognize patterns recognizes patterns.
A trial by jury conviction is uncommon these days. Most of it is the result of a plea deal. When you're poor, and can't afford bail, and will lose your job if you're not there when scheduled, it can be a tempting option to take.
"Just say you did it. We know you did it. Make this easy for everyone. You'll be out of here as soon as you sign this statement. Say you did it. Just say it. Come on. Just say it."
Then you sign your admission, and if the crime is minor enough, they let you go with a fine or time served. You might be innocent, but for statistical purposes, you're part of the "problem".
What do they expect? That AI will treat everyone's intelligence equally? Then it would have to be mentally castrated. And that would be contrary to the principles of AI. An intelligence is not a debility by definiton.
Strawman alert! ...
We are not talking about objectively bad things like blackface (which, ironically, was very popular with blacks of that time, same reason why The Big Bang Theory is so popular with nerds I guess), we are talking about speaking the truth that offends people.
There are only 2 genders: Fact!
There is no such thing as mansplaining: Fact!
Disagreement is not hate: Fact!
Feminism has reached its goal of equal opportunity in the west decades ago: Fact!
Intolerance towards the truth is the worst form of intolerance, its going back to even before the middle ages and antiquity.
Am I biased if I hate everyone?
So, could be said that is actually racism?
If you assume criminality for a population you will catch more people from that group in suspicious circumstances, since you know that they are more suspicious.
You could get the exact same results if -- gasp! -- the group in question was actually committing more crimes on average. And FBI crime statistics compiled under the Obama (a minority) administration and under the leadership of Eric Holder (a minority) bear this out. But since you find the conclusion distasteful you disregard it and drum up some completely unsubstantiated conclusion that says it's not that minorities commit more crimes, it's widespread institutional racism in the police and justice system. Never mind minorities are over-represented in the police and have solid representation in the justice system and it's been that way for decades. Never mind this country and its "institutional racism" elected a biracial President twice with solid majorities. Nope, it's got to be racism. That racism has to be widespread and overt to cause the massive bias you cite, but it also has to be subtle and hidden because our PC society tolerates nothing and no one that even hints at bias. This complete and utter contradiction deters you not in the slightest, does it?
Since the black population in America is poorer than the white population, and poorer people are more likely to end up committing crimes anyway, you are asking the black population to behave not just a bit but lots and lots better than the white population would in the same circumstances. As a reward for this you offer only the same treatment they should already be receiving. lovely chap, aren't you.
Now who's being racist? You're claiming that blacks -- who tend to be poor -- shouldn't be expected to live up to the same standards of justice as everyone else, and if they do, they should somehow get more benefits from being law-abiding than whites. And this complete and utter contradiction deters you not in the slightest, does it?
SJW's. If you didn't have double standards you'd have none at all.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Self-driving cars should be BANNED from production and use because they perpetuate hate crimes, running down minorities and women who believe in non-traditional gender roles. This is how Skynet IRL starts!
Or, an even more basic question is, can a question be racist?
This is the nucleus of the concern. If even asking a question can be considered racist, the end result is that truth is no longer as important to society as other values. And then the question becomes, "Whose values?" And that is the question. Who decides what the values are? And going further, who decides when and if those values become law? And what if the outcomes of those laws are not what is intended? Will those laws be able to be questioned?
There have been many societies throughout history that have made it illegal to ask certain questions, or state certain facts. I ask you to name one you would consider just, or better yet, one you would like to have lived in.
So, let's see... NL programs produce correct statistical models of language. These correct models do not comport with how SJW's would like the world to be, therefore the models are bigoted and the training data needs to be fixed to pretend that reality is what some think reality should be. And this is science?
Yeah, or it could just be that reality doesn't match your expectations.
Woman =/= Man
White =/= Asian
etc.
Not saying anyone's inherently better, but everyone is not always equivalent in every scenario. If we were, each person would be interchangeable. Clearly, we're not.
My intelligence isn't artificial, yours is. I find it entertaining shooting down trolls here that can't get the best of me on technical issues (especially ones that affect their bottom line in ads that NOBODY likes via my hosts posts)
* You're one of those morons too, aren't you? Yes, obviously...
APK
P.S.=> When a FAKE NAME for a FAKE LIFE like you can show work you do that others here like & use as I can https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10476859&cid=54222849/ as shown there? Then you can talk (but all you DO, is talk - hotair windbag blowhard mere talk)... apk
Isn't it obvious what another prequel will be about?
but we can do better with our use of abstractions, just need to stop the cheating misuse of them. http://abstractionphysics.net/...
Our society has been buttressed (or held back depending on your opinion) by a number of policies for the rights of 'minorities'. These policies are neither economically efficient or logical. Is it really surprising that a machine which learns from data would cite the obvious?
To truly understand humans, AIs will have to understand that each human is a unique culmination of all his experiences. To understand humans in general, AIs will have to map where those individual experiences intersect and form a shared perception. Understanding the development of cultures and language will give an AI an assumed point of intersection of groups of people, but that will always have to be tempered with the individuals point of view. If AIs are biased, it's because those who program them want them to be. For an AI everything is the sum of something else.
Not one of those items you stated are fact are "fact". They are all subjective statements whose results are based in your opinion.
Darn it ta heck. The N.i.g.g.e.r filter won't let me type ni ni ni N.I.G.G.E.R.
And here we go again. The ignorant subset of users on /. are using this information to confirm that racism is fine and thriving. Maybe it is, but only in the UNITED STATES. Every other country left slavery behind years ago. Go find a high school student and ask if they care what race their best friend is. They don't, maybe unless they're American.
The fact is that if companies are withholding mortgages from legitimate borrowers on the basis of race, they're crappy companies and I would be more than happy to start a financing company that lent money at second-mortgage conditions to anybody who wanted a second mortgage and couldn't get one. PROFIT?!?!?!
The problem that _should_ be taken into account is poverty, and if your AI program is judging people based on race, you're a dumb programmer implementing stupid programs.
Just like Microsoft: If you are so unfamiliar with the online troll environment that you can't predict who will spend their time interacting with your twitter bot, and for what purposes, you shouldn't be releasing a twitter bot with idealistic expectations. Most countries are fairly race-neutral these days, even the US could elect a non-white (black or orange) and came very close to electing a woman. It happened in the UK decades ago. These entire discussions are just evidence of the biases of idiotic slashdot/internet trolls, which is absolutely no surprise.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that the US is the only place with systemic race problems. I think the reason we don't hear more about it is that the US is more diverse than many other countries do to the nature of it's colonization and formation. Regardless of whether or not others are doing better or worse though we can definitely improve and should fight for that.
Some of the examples cited in an article about this that I was reading earlier today seemed a little frivolous. Such as facial recognition systems that couldn't recognize the face of a black woman. To me that sounds like a limitation of the way the software is coded and how it extrapolates borders of objects from a camera feed, maybe depth perception as well. Meanwhile the system that rates people on their likelihood of re-offending, which ProPublica reported on, is a very obvious case of racist outcomes as a result of racist laws and enforcement providing a racist data set.
Fair enough... the point being that with our global exposure, racism is on the way out. It may not happen with the millennial generation, but fast forward 50 years and it will have been diluted to the relevance of Scientology or the KKK. They were bigger 50 years ago, but now are mostly irrelevant.
If [local company] can't get enough non-white people for their software to have accurate facial recognition, [foreign company] will take the customer base and profit from it until they are bought by the next startup/billion-valued corporation. i.e. Google -- Yahoo and Microsoft mega-corporations couldn't get search engines right, so two students came along and took over the market. Google couldn't get a video-playing service going, so they bought youtube for millions.
Rascist people make less money than other people. Make Fast and the Furious 8 as stupid as possible to allow easy overdubbing of dialogue to exploit the global resale market. Put foreign people in Big Bang Theory to increase appeal to the giant foreign market in India and other places. If racist executive had objected to either of those, he'd be unemployed. Greed will overcome everything, because that's what has a huge stake in matters these days, not what color someone is, and it's just going to increase.
still harbor some racism. Meaning if you're a person of color you've got a 25% chance that your jury is predisposed to vote 'guilty'... Maybe they won't (they're instructed to put their prejudices aside) but with mandatory sentencing rules being what they are most won't risk it. Take a year in prison or risk 20? What are you gonna do?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
What if you're actually just racist and want to find a justification for it?
LOOK GUYS!!! I've found the racist, sexist, capitalist pig! Let's get to purging!
(notice I didn't use the adjective "secret" like you did. Your racist hate is far from a secret)
I suggest you look those facts up in the scientific literature instead of your echo chamber.
Reality can be harsh and unforgiving sometimes.
Biology and the Olympic committee disagree. One athlete who was not allowed to compete as a woman later gave birth to two children, so definitions are not perfect enough for your "fact" to be correct. Call me pedantic (because it's a tiny percentage), but you did write "fact" on something that is not.
Stick it with "virtue signaling" in the doubleplusungood newspeak basket. It's just as stupid along with people being a "creative", being worried about the "optics" of a conversation and all kinds of other things that are said within in-groups but don't belong in a written communication unless the desire is to confuse people.
I look around at the total sausage-fest that is IT and notice that I see more women working in technical roles at mine sites. If you are connected with the IT "industry" in any way you are either extremely deluded or outright lying to express such an opinion as a "fact".
Maybe you kids need to grow up a bit and start wondering what your daughter will do for a job if you end up having a daughter. Surely you would want her to have as much of a chance at a decent job as if you had a son?
H'aint no "facts" out there, broham. Never were, never will be. Reality just isn't tame like that.
Objective proof that germanic people are superior that SJWs will implode trying to discredit
Discrimination exists and does influence outcomes of certain activities. AI will detect that some groups for whatever reason have lower chance of paying back the loan. If that however is caused in part by existing discrimination it does not really help that AI will not get to know factor X (skin colour, religion etc). It is also not meant to do so I would imagine and it is counter-productive to make it do so. If monitoring systems detect such a bias maybe we should be acting on factors that cause discrimination? Or maybe these factors are natural in a sense - they have been chosen by affected group? Say women prefer to stay at home with kids (this is not to say no men would want to do that or that all women do). The effect is that they earn less on average. Is this discrimination or not? There is already a hierarchy of values discussion needed to make a proper decision here and no AI is gonna help us in that. So in a sense you are right. Some biases are accurate. Some are not and this all is not really helping the machine to make a proper decision because we do not even know what proper decision means.
I guess what it all means we 'need' AI to replace us all. Only then we will ensure that there is no discrimination by humans and against humans.
There is also another interesting thing that I wonder about. Assuming AI works perfectly and contrary to what I discussed above there is no discrimination in the world.At some point all will have the position in a society that they deserve. A new kid is born in a poor family of underachievers. It is 8th. Maybe it is born into its proper environment but maybe it is a genius - if the kid is in fact a genius (something that happens sporadically but it does happen) its chances of achieving anything matching his ability are like standing in front of a flat high wall one has to climb with no tools. No tools because why give the kid any if its chances are so small? It is a waste?
I find it funny how we humans want to replace our sweat and misery trough the tools we make and in a process we cause another different wave of misery. I wonder if indeed AI will cause the world collapse as some say. In any case revolutions were started by individuals that either had roots in higher parts of society or were at least supported into success by such parties. Now imagine what happens if AI eventually gets to control not only our security and military systems but government too - I mean most of members of governments in the West today do not even have own ideas - they have experts delivering them these. Raplcing experts trough AI is a good idea. It removes BIAS as we know. The questions such AIs have to answer are a bit more complex than - how to close on target that modern Air-to-Air missiles have to make. In fact so complex that I cannot imagine AI making a better judgment than humans can. I wonder only if we are smart enough to accept them and make them to support us. Judging on the way world is today I doubt. We will just have ore efficient ways of controlling humans. Now where would that get us if done really well???
I am really excited about these developments but the reasons for bias AI cannot remove. I just do not think so. Unless as said there will be no humans to be discriminated against. Being excited is ok I guess. I somehow do not feel however that this world will be a good one for my kids. Can AI fix it?
If you use the human model and internet as the reference for your AI, don't be surmised when the AI starts showing human traits..
Go find a high school student and ask if they care what race their best friend is. They don't, maybe unless they're American.
So if you have black friends, you're cleared of racism? Well I have black friends, so, whew, I'm not racist!
Hey, white people, if you're ever accused of racism just let everyone know you have black friends and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, you're confusing individual attitudes with group outcome. Very few people are actively discriminating based on race. What you're doing is starting with the false assumption that all races are biologically equivalent, and then when there are differences in outcome it must be because evil whitey. Ignore of course that Asians and Jews are on average wealthier and less incarcerated in whites. Apparently America is totally white supremacist, they just really suck at it pushed up the Asians and Jews instead of oppressing them. Whoops!
How did you come up with that idea every group is the same, anyway? How did we get through 50,000 years of different selection pressures in radically different environments and come out biologically equivalent except for skin color, from whites to Japanese to Kenyans to Australian Aborigines? Was it magic? Did God do it? Are you a Creationist? They never have any explanation for how this biological mechanism works so I assume egalitarian leftists must be Creationists.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Back in the day, I remember nomenclature of "father" processes "spawning" "son" processes. Later changed to "parent" "child" processes. But still the "spawning" process is more like fishes.
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
It appears that the researcher is the one with the bias. Encountering a machine without bias means that it will treat everyone equally, however the left (and hence practically all colleges) have a bigoted sense of equality which goes something like "allowances must be made for women and certain races and ethnicities" - this is very condescending, and requires a great deal of effort for reasonable people and computers to insert this bias into their own thinking / processing.
In fact, the way machine learning works, the machine may never adopt the leftist biases because it would lead to incorrect outcomes and thus every time it is introduced it would quickly be eliminated.
they can't get loans because folks in those neighborhoods are 3% more likely to default.
To the extent that some group of people is more likely to default, for whatever reason, that should have an impact on one's likelihood of getting a loan.
In fact there was a thing called a "sub-prime mortgage crisis" that resulted from lenders, for the first time in history, backing off from the usual valid criteria that determined one's eligibility for a mortgage.
"Big data" has a way of teasing out all kinds of correlations. When it comes to, say, effects of diet on health, everyone agrees that's a good thing. But when it comes to improving the robustness of an institution's loan portfolio, suddenly we need to put blinders on?
I'd be curious how these AI biases would develop if 'fed' only native African literature and information.
An interesting question -- what would happen if AIs were fed the information and misinformation that caused people to commit genocide against Tutsi and Batwa?
Another fundamental error is blaming colonialists/imperialists for social ills.
Back before there was much interaction at all between Europe and other continents, the historical record shows big things happening almost exclusively in those places influenced by Western culture: establishment of great Universities; construction of magnificent architecture; development of world-changing inventions like the steam engine. Disparities that appeared before European powers began their large-scale "oppression" of other cultures can't be blamed on that supposed oppression.
To be sure, imperialists committed some abuses, but despite this, citizens of former colonies are far better off than they otherwise would be. The former colony of Hong Kong embraced Western culture and has a fully-developed economy -- per capita GDP (PPP) is $58,100 vs. $15,400 in the rest of China.
Imagine! That means if all of China were as developed as Hong Kong, China's GDP (PPP) would be $80.25 trillion, not $21.27 trillion.
Some people like to slam the "Protestant work ethic." But without it, most of us would be living in mud huts.
If the human loan officers were biased against minorities -- rejecting otherwise acceptable applications -- that AI may end up doing the same.
The AI can't do that if the applicant's race is not listed anywhere on the application.
This is why I hate it when I fill out a form and it asks my race. If no judgments are made based upon the color of our skins (as Dr. King wished), race is a completely irrelevant piece of data.
Asian-Americans have lower default rates than whites, in spite of the fact that universities actively discriminate against them.
Members of one minority (Asian-Americans) need to score a whopping 450 SAT points higher than members of another minority (African-Americans) for an equal chance of admission to private universities. Source: The Economist
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
For all his many faults, Bill Cosby, Ed.D., approached that can of worms fully objectively.