If a properly trained machine learning system disproportionately rejects applications of some gender or race, then that reflects an actual statistical regularity in the world, not the result of discrimination or bias.
Except it's not that simple. The statistical reality that people in Philadelphia are less likely to have insurance, means it's more likely your insurance company will have to pay money if you're not at fault. Which means that it costs more to insure a car in Philadelphia. Which means fewer people have insurance.
This cycle is why Philadelphia has far higher insurance rates than either other cities (e.g. Pittsburg) in Pennsylvania or similar cities vis-a-vis accident and crime rates (e.g. Baltimore)..
First, I was totally wrong on the number. Those were injuries not deaths. But that's just facts.
I disagree with your baserate analysis. What matters is the likelihood someone will kill themselves, given that they/their neighbors own lawndarts For instance, the rate of children killing themselves with bazookas is very low (probably 0). But I think most people are opposed to children owning bazookas.
If it was legal for a child to own a bazooka, the one child every couple of years whose parents bought him one may die. But no one would say that the 1 death/country is the significant number. It would be the 100% (50%?) of kids with bazookas.
The resulting.... outsider trading with insider knowledge will be astounding. Oh, that sounds awesome, no patent on it yet?
Actually, that's already been tried. Someone who ran the print and distribute service for companies started using that information. It was ruled to be insider trading.
The opinions of celebrities or well-known people carry no more weight to me than if it were an average person on the street. It is unfortunate that this has turned into people's opinions of the candidates instead of talking about their positions on issues.
While I agree with the general principle, there are obvious exceptions. For instance, the Surgeon General's views on smoking or a Nobel prize winner's views on their subject matter.
And, just like a random blogger, Scott wrote thousands of pages about politics. Now, those were only noticed because he created Dilbert. But there is now enough history for people to decide if his views on politics are worth listening to.
Because the Secretary of State has the same authority to order armed forces around as I do. (which is none, in can you thought I was Obama/someone important)
Just because the universe doesn't fit into your limited imagination is no reason to suspect that we are in a simulation
It's not an "imagination" issue. It's a "I good at computers (see pile of cash), computers are everything, therefore I am a deity" issue.
That, and being able to purchase anything in this world, they want something better. And that has to be outside this simulation. You know, the cool stuff they cannot have.
In general in the US, you can be fired for any reason with notable exceptions. Those exceptions are things like whistleblower protections, anti-gender/racial discrimination protections, sexual or other harassment protections, etc.
We have compulsory (Un)employment Insurance here (in the states), but companies pay into the kitty with each paycheck they give an employee. A high number of people drawing from insurance may cause rates to go up on an employer.
Note, the level of insurance benefits vary wildly from state to state. California used to have an issue with movie stars (who are unemployed like 50% of the time) drawing massively from the system (for example), so they have changed their rules. Some southern states only offer you minimum wage level benefits, regardless of what you made before.
You're right that you have to look at rates of death, not absolute numbers. Feel free to add context.
It's stupid to put those number in context with other causes of death. Because we're not choosing one to get rid of, we're choosing whether to keep an activity.
Toxic gas gets released in a closed environment, a fire starts on a plane, and you think it's abnormal that the smoke be cleared out before a 100 million dollar plane and hundreds of lives are risked?
I don't feel all that old, but lemme tell ya... when I was a kid nobody wore bicycle helmets. None of my friends died in bicycle accidents and none of us died from lawn darts either.
Nice anecdote grandpa. Since your time, we invented this idea of "statistics" and "collecting data". Fact is, more than 6,000 kids died in the eight years before lawn darts were banned. Now, is it worth banning just to save 763 lives a year? That's a judgement call. But it's not "this activity is perfectly safe, overreaching 'crats." Fun sidenote, apparently the most common cause of injury wasn't among the contestants, but because someone overthrew it into someone else's yard.
Some areas of the country are more expensive because of labor costs, land costs, or other reasons. Now, that said, you can make it illegal to price differently because of competition. But the best way to do that is to have local commissions set rates or similar.
Do you really use Bing to find something on the internet (even though google pisses you off with their shitty interface and aggravating "localized results")?
I use DDG, but I readily admit that sometimes I fail over to Bing, then Google. At one point, when DDG and Bing were bother newer, I looked up the same phrase in all three engines. Google took me to Yahoo! Answers. Bing took me to relevant consumer level pages. DDG took me to a dissertation on the topic. (Which was so random I did not assume anyone had ever written).
DDG and even Bing seem to have trended downhill a bit on obscure information (or Google got better). The main reason I use them in that order is mostly to try to prevent a single monolith, but I when I don't find an answer on the first two pages of the other two, I end up back at Google.
Overpricing, for example, is quite simple. If you pick a price that is too high for your product, you will wind up with a large surplus of unsold goods.
Oh, then that seems like an error. It's strange to have it marked as "evil" since, even in the most shortsighted version, it's beneficial not to do that. Since the whole conversation was "evil is shortsighted", it seems either you misunderstood the point, or it was a meaningless aside by GGP.
Perhaps you are a socalist, with that completely misguided notion that the value of a good is equal to the value of materials plus labor costs.
Not only is this a strange ad hominem, and not only is that a belief only present in some strands of socialism, but someone who believed that would understand what was meant by "overpricing is evil". Which I clearly did not and based on your explanation still do not do.
Using your monopoly status to force people to pay more than they can afford
So, yes, my assumption we were talking about extracting monopoly profits. You're right that if elasticity is so low (ala crack to an addict) you can literally force them to commit crimes to buy your product. Note, this is the first suggestion of that in this conversation and seems to come out of left field. Please read and respond to my critique.
, slavery was abolished not because one crop of politicians was morally superior to all previous crops, but because technology made it possible and the goodness in human nature overpowered the evil.
Umm... I highly recommend you look up the American Civil War. Your description is simply not accurate.
n the modern environment, where slavery and racism are both illegal and will remain so, racial prejudice will only harm profit. Those who build non-racist-AI will make more money than those who do not, and natural selection will run its course.
I'll grant slavery is illegal (in most, but not all, countries), but racism certainly is not. Certain overt racist acts within commerce are. And, those who are racist are certainly excited about AI, because AI has been show to develop racist tendencies underlying their training materials. And I don't mean "it scanned Mein Kampf" or was allowed to interact with Twitter. I mean, examining trends in foreclosures that had a racial component, detecting predictors of race as predictors of foreclosures (accurately, but evilly), and providing a feedback loop making the loans black people get more expensive which will lead to more foreclosures.
. I also wonder if I am just throwing my pearls before swine, anyway. A certain level of critical thinking is required before one can meaningfully participate in conversations like this.
That's your third or fourth ad hominum. For someone angrily defending the limited idea of "slavery is wrong", "unreasonable prices lead to buyer and seller missing out on a mutually beneficial transaction" and "Yes I meant what you thought I meant with my made up terms" but refusing to respond to my post, the "pearls before swine" comment is ironic.
"Hey the five of us should split up the whole pie" gets them all a bigger slice than "hey, lets all grab whatever floating around pie there is." So I assume they will.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's not that simple. The statistical reality that people in Philadelphia are less likely to have insurance, means it's more likely your insurance company will have to pay money if you're not at fault. Which means that it costs more to insure a car in Philadelphia. Which means fewer people have insurance.
This cycle is why Philadelphia has far higher insurance rates than either other cities (e.g. Pittsburg) in Pennsylvania or similar cities vis-a-vis accident and crime rates (e.g. Baltimore)..
Hence, a bias is "baked in" to the data.
No, Google found out that past human racist decisions are corrupting their data pool.
First, I was totally wrong on the number. Those were injuries not deaths. But that's just facts.
I disagree with your baserate analysis. What matters is the likelihood someone will kill themselves, given that they/their neighbors own lawndarts For instance, the rate of children killing themselves with bazookas is very low (probably 0). But I think most people are opposed to children owning bazookas.
If it was legal for a child to own a bazooka, the one child every couple of years whose parents bought him one may die. But no one would say that the 1 death/country is the significant number. It would be the 100% (50%?) of kids with bazookas.
Actually, that's already been tried. Someone who ran the print and distribute service for companies started using that information. It was ruled to be insider trading.
He says he intentionally does stuff like that to trigger this response. That way, you argue about style while secretly agreeing with his point.
Not that I believe that. I think that's bull. But it is what he says.
While I agree with the general principle, there are obvious exceptions. For instance, the Surgeon General's views on smoking or a Nobel prize winner's views on their subject matter.
And, just like a random blogger, Scott wrote thousands of pages about politics. Now, those were only noticed because he created Dilbert. But there is now enough history for people to decide if his views on politics are worth listening to.
I mean, it actually is. Now, it's not a new business, but selling ads is their first and primary revenue stream.
Because the Secretary of State has the same authority to order armed forces around as I do. (which is none, in can you thought I was Obama/someone important)
It's not an "imagination" issue. It's a "I good at computers (see pile of cash), computers are everything, therefore I am a deity" issue.
That, and being able to purchase anything in this world, they want something better. And that has to be outside this simulation. You know, the cool stuff they cannot have.
In general in the US, you can be fired for any reason with notable exceptions. Those exceptions are things like whistleblower protections, anti-gender/racial discrimination protections, sexual or other harassment protections, etc.
We have compulsory (Un)employment Insurance here (in the states), but companies pay into the kitty with each paycheck they give an employee. A high number of people drawing from insurance may cause rates to go up on an employer.
Note, the level of insurance benefits vary wildly from state to state. California used to have an issue with movie stars (who are unemployed like 50% of the time) drawing massively from the system (for example), so they have changed their rules. Some southern states only offer you minimum wage level benefits, regardless of what you made before.
And we don't have duels to the death. Ready for the next round of unrelated "do things still exist?"
You're right that you have to look at rates of death, not absolute numbers. Feel free to add context.
It's stupid to put those number in context with other causes of death. Because we're not choosing one to get rid of, we're choosing whether to keep an activity.
I know what an IoT device is. I don't see why anyone would want one. Especially a toaster.
Google backs this up. You're correct. That certainly changes the calculus dramatically.
Removing features until hey can be added securely is the opposite of an IoT toaster. Also, why would anyone want an IoT toaster.
Toxic gas gets released in a closed environment, a fire starts on a plane, and you think it's abnormal that the smoke be cleared out before a 100 million dollar plane and hundreds of lives are risked?
Nice anecdote grandpa. Since your time, we invented this idea of "statistics" and "collecting data". Fact is, more than 6,000 kids died in the eight years before lawn darts were banned. Now, is it worth banning just to save 763 lives a year? That's a judgement call. But it's not "this activity is perfectly safe, overreaching 'crats." Fun sidenote, apparently the most common cause of injury wasn't among the contestants, but because someone overthrew it into someone else's yard.
Location and calendar are literally "we may use these in the future." It's bad practice to request preemptive permissions.
Or call VISA and tell them those charges are no longer authorized
Apple and MS seem to keep software they buy alive forever. Google kills its own software and purchased software regularly.
Some areas of the country are more expensive because of labor costs, land costs, or other reasons. Now, that said, you can make it illegal to price differently because of competition. But the best way to do that is to have local commissions set rates or similar.
I use DDG, but I readily admit that sometimes I fail over to Bing, then Google. At one point, when DDG and Bing were bother newer, I looked up the same phrase in all three engines. Google took me to Yahoo! Answers. Bing took me to relevant consumer level pages. DDG took me to a dissertation on the topic. (Which was so random I did not assume anyone had ever written).
DDG and even Bing seem to have trended downhill a bit on obscure information (or Google got better). The main reason I use them in that order is mostly to try to prevent a single monolith, but I when I don't find an answer on the first two pages of the other two, I end up back at Google.
Oh, then that seems like an error. It's strange to have it marked as "evil" since, even in the most shortsighted version, it's beneficial not to do that. Since the whole conversation was "evil is shortsighted", it seems either you misunderstood the point, or it was a meaningless aside by GGP.
Not only is this a strange ad hominem, and not only is that a belief only present in some strands of socialism, but someone who believed that would understand what was meant by "overpricing is evil". Which I clearly did not and based on your explanation still do not do.
So, yes, my assumption we were talking about extracting monopoly profits. You're right that if elasticity is so low (ala crack to an addict) you can literally force them to commit crimes to buy your product. Note, this is the first suggestion of that in this conversation and seems to come out of left field. Please read and respond to my critique.
Umm... I highly recommend you look up the American Civil War. Your description is simply not accurate.
I'll grant slavery is illegal (in most, but not all, countries), but racism certainly is not. Certain overt racist acts within commerce are. And, those who are racist are certainly excited about AI, because AI has been show to develop racist tendencies underlying their training materials. And I don't mean "it scanned Mein Kampf" or was allowed to interact with Twitter. I mean, examining trends in foreclosures that had a racial component, detecting predictors of race as predictors of foreclosures (accurately, but evilly), and providing a feedback loop making the loans black people get more expensive which will lead to more foreclosures.
That's your third or fourth ad hominum. For someone angrily defending the limited idea of "slavery is wrong", "unreasonable prices lead to buyer and seller missing out on a mutually beneficial transaction" and "Yes I meant what you thought I meant with my made up terms" but refusing to respond to my post, the "pearls before swine" comment is ironic.
Wait, really? Who thinks someone would use the same FB account at work?
"Hey the five of us should split up the whole pie" gets them all a bigger slice than "hey, lets all grab whatever floating around pie there is." So I assume they will.