Where did you get the idea I hate women or minorities? I hate leftists, who accuse me of hatred for noticing obvious, proven differences and speaking the truth about them, though, I'll grant you that.
I think you're confusing local and global maximums. Also ignoring time. Your 19 year old drug dealer's neighbors are poor, and that 19 year old is in jail when he's 21, and a new 19 year old is temporarily rich. The community will remain permanently poor, however.
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.
You have it backwards, though. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.
I'm not making an 'appeal to nature' here, saying what "should" be or "shouldn't" be.
But the authors of the article are making such a statement, they just have nature completely backwards. They believe mankind, separated from "society" is naturally non-racist, non-sexist, non-gendered even, and that the outcomes of race, gender, or class groups is imposed on the formless humans by society, to where the concepts themselves of race and gender are "social constructs," and if we smash them everything will just...be great.
This is very similar to Marx's concept of communism and capitalism. He believed that mankind had no innate human nature, so the natural state of mankind was stateless communism, where everyone just naturally gets along and shares and contributes from his ability to the needs of others, and that capitalism was a foreign, oppressive system imposed on these innocents. This is why Marx is famous for his criticisms of capitalism, but as for his descriptions of communism...well not only does he not have them, he thought it was near blasphemous to try to describe how this natural communism would be carried out in practice because the imposition of such order is contrary to the natural, emergent collective spirit of mankind constrained and oppressed by capitalism. Want pure glorious wealth and utopian plenty? Just smash capitalism and you'll get it. And if you've smashed capitalism and perfect communism hasn't emerged...well it must be because you've still got some secret capitalists gumming up the works and they need to be ferreted out and sent to gulag.
This is the same concept behind feminism and anti-racism. Gender norms have nothing to do with the clear, obvious, and scientifically proven biological differences between the sexes. These are in fact imposed by the evil Patriarchy. Smash the Patriarchy and gender equality will simply emerge. If it doesn't, well, it must be because there's still evil sexists hiding around here and they need to be identified and purged. Difference in racial outcomes have nothing to do with the clear, obvious, and scientifically proven biological differences between human haplogroup populations. These are in fact enforced by evil White Supremacy. Smash White Supremacy and racial equality will simply emerge. If it doesn't, well, it must be because there still exist evil racists hiding around here and they need to be identified and purged.
This is the fundamental error of the social justice movement: the belief that race and gender are social constructs when in fact society is a racial and sexual construct.
What would an export grade AI look like after years of SJW meddling with the design?
To add on, build an AI in the politicized west and ship it to Japan. They unpack it next to a Japanese-designed AI. They ask the AIs, "is an average Japanese person more intelligent, less intelligent, or the same intelligence as an average Ugandan person?"
How does that play out? We know what each AI will be required to say. Why would anyone not afflicted with western social justice leftism ever want to buy the American AI?
It's when racism is part of the basic makeup of society.
But race is part of the basic makeup of society. You get called an SJW and shouted down because your premise is the opposite of reality, and you've put your political ideology ahead of science and your own lying eyes. This is very bad, because since you don't understand the problems your "solutions" only make things worse.
Are you suggesting crime rates are propaganda? Feed the computer the racial background of everyone incarcerated in America. Be shocked when it concludes blacks are more likely to be criminals.
Of course, but I'm talking about human perceptions of acceptable failure. And the magnifying glass of the media.
People are going to expect, "well, it's a robot! It should be perfect and if it's not then it's designed wrong and I'm going to sue and if I can't sue I'm going to make a huge stink about it!" The numbers of people dying is irrelevant in the same way the chances of getting bitten by a shark was irrelevant during that one "Summer of the Shark" when the news media focused on every single bite so people thought sharks were going nuts even though shark attacks were down that year.
My thesis is that one of the defining characteristics of "intelligence" is the ability to deal reliability with insufficient information and novel situations. But since the situations have insufficient information, it is necessary that whatever system is dealing with them will sometimes get the solution wrong, and crash the car. They will necessarily be fallible, and anything that can't make reasonably good decisions in the face of insufficient information is nothing we would call "intelligent."
So anything that's intelligent is something that can deal with insufficient information and novel situations, but anything that's dealing with such things is going to be wrong at times (because insufficient information). But humans do not tolerant unreliable machines like they tolerant imperfect humans, even if the unreliable machines are more reliable than the imperfect humans.
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood.
But intelligence and consciousness are not fully understood, and may not even be understandable. And I say that not to invoke some kind of mysticism, but because our decision making processes are lots of overlapping heuristics that are selected by yet other fuzzy heuristics. We have this expectation from sci-fi that a general purpose AI is going to be just like us except way faster and always right, but an awful lot of our intelligent behavior relies on making the best guess at the time with incomplete information. Rustling in bushes -> maybe a tiger -> run -> oh it was just a rabbit. Heuristics work until they don't.
It may be that an AI must be fallible, because to err is (to think like a) human. But forgiveness only extends to humans. When the human account representative at your bank mishears you you politely repeat yourself. When the automated system mishears you you curse all machines and demand to speak to a "real person." The real person may not be much better but it doesn't make you as angry when they mishear you. With automobile pilots we tolerate faulty humans whose decision-making processes we absolutely don't understand such that car crashes don't even make the news, but every car AI pilot fender bender will "raise deep questions about the suitability of robots to drive cars."
And *why* should a random company show its confidential internal data?
They're applying for government contracts, which is how this whole mess got started. The government says "you have to be X fair to chicks to get contracts" and so they need to show that they are at least X fair to chicks.
Even with moderator approval required before posts go public, are they seriously expecting VOLUNTARY MODERATORS to be able to recognize if a random picture in a random post belongs to the poster or not?
If a white Christian says something vile, it's just them exercising their right to free speech. If a brown Muslim does the same, the world is ending.
It seems like it's the other way around. Leftists are constantly scrutinizing anything their political enemies say for secret, coded racism, "dog whistles," anything they can use to accuse someone of thought crime, because maybe liking your own culture or ethnic group a little more than others is horrible and evil and you're a monster who should be ostracized from society. However, be a 7th century religious zealot from goatfucker land and say "Islam will dominate the world, we will kill all of you infidels for Allah, we will take your lands, your sons shall be our slaves and your daughters our whores" and the left thinks you're just swell, rolls out the red carpet for you and gives you keys to a truck.
In practice, 90% of what people mean when they say "race" is purely artificial social division.
But everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "a black guy" or "an asian guy" or "a white guy." Having to say "this collection of human haplogroups" or "individuals of recent European descent" is just a type of tone policing. The "race is just as social construct" talk only comes out when it's a right winger speaking about race. You'll never find the leftists chanting "The Social Construct of 'Black' Describing Human Haplogroups Common to Peoples of Recent African Descent's Lives Matter!"
I hate this saying. It is such a clear and obvious lie. Diversity is not, at all, a strength, but an exploitable weakness. At best, it is a challenge that requires enormous effort to overcome. If your neighborhood goes from having one culture to having ten, it is not stronger. Your neighborhood that used to agree on lots of things now has hundreds of potential conflicts, and it becomes very easy to exploit these differences to pit people against each other. The only reason to tell people that "diversity is a strength" is because you're trying to divide and conquer.
I miss the one Apple IIe in the back of every classroom that no one else knew how to use. "Computers are the future, and so we need them in the classroom!" and our school system bought one Apple IIe for each classroom, that sat there, unused.
In the 4th grade we had to do some project about the different types of biomes (tundra, desert, deciduous forest, rain forest, etc). So most people made a diorama or something. I wrote a quiz game in BASIC called "Name That Biome!" I included 20 questions from the textbook about the different biomes, and the program would pick 10 at random, ask them to the user, the user would enter their multiple choice answer, and then it would tell if you got it right or not, and then give you your score at the end. This was wizardy to the teacher, so I got a 100. And after that every year up through high school there was some project or another in one of my classes where I could just swap out the questions and the game became "Name That State!" "Name That Napoleonic Wars Battle!" Took only a few minutes and got an A every time. Good times.
Slashdot Mirror
Where did you get the idea I hate women or minorities? I hate leftists, who accuse me of hatred for noticing obvious, proven differences and speaking the truth about them, though, I'll grant you that.
I think you're confusing local and global maximums. Also ignoring time. Your 19 year old drug dealer's neighbors are poor, and that 19 year old is in jail when he's 21, and a new 19 year old is temporarily rich. The community will remain permanently poor, however.
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.
You have it backwards, though. Crime causes poverty, not the other way around.
I'm not making an 'appeal to nature' here, saying what "should" be or "shouldn't" be.
But the authors of the article are making such a statement, they just have nature completely backwards. They believe mankind, separated from "society" is naturally non-racist, non-sexist, non-gendered even, and that the outcomes of race, gender, or class groups is imposed on the formless humans by society, to where the concepts themselves of race and gender are "social constructs," and if we smash them everything will just...be great.
This is very similar to Marx's concept of communism and capitalism. He believed that mankind had no innate human nature, so the natural state of mankind was stateless communism, where everyone just naturally gets along and shares and contributes from his ability to the needs of others, and that capitalism was a foreign, oppressive system imposed on these innocents. This is why Marx is famous for his criticisms of capitalism, but as for his descriptions of communism...well not only does he not have them, he thought it was near blasphemous to try to describe how this natural communism would be carried out in practice because the imposition of such order is contrary to the natural, emergent collective spirit of mankind constrained and oppressed by capitalism. Want pure glorious wealth and utopian plenty? Just smash capitalism and you'll get it. And if you've smashed capitalism and perfect communism hasn't emerged...well it must be because you've still got some secret capitalists gumming up the works and they need to be ferreted out and sent to gulag.
This is the same concept behind feminism and anti-racism. Gender norms have nothing to do with the clear, obvious, and scientifically proven biological differences between the sexes. These are in fact imposed by the evil Patriarchy. Smash the Patriarchy and gender equality will simply emerge. If it doesn't, well, it must be because there's still evil sexists hiding around here and they need to be identified and purged. Difference in racial outcomes have nothing to do with the clear, obvious, and scientifically proven biological differences between human haplogroup populations. These are in fact enforced by evil White Supremacy. Smash White Supremacy and racial equality will simply emerge. If it doesn't, well, it must be because there still exist evil racists hiding around here and they need to be identified and purged.
This is the fundamental error of the social justice movement: the belief that race and gender are social constructs when in fact society is a racial and sexual construct.
What would an export grade AI look like after years of SJW meddling with the design?
To add on, build an AI in the politicized west and ship it to Japan. They unpack it next to a Japanese-designed AI. They ask the AIs, "is an average Japanese person more intelligent, less intelligent, or the same intelligence as an average Ugandan person?"
How does that play out? We know what each AI will be required to say. Why would anyone not afflicted with western social justice leftism ever want to buy the American AI?
It's when racism is part of the basic makeup of society.
But race is part of the basic makeup of society. You get called an SJW and shouted down because your premise is the opposite of reality, and you've put your political ideology ahead of science and your own lying eyes. This is very bad, because since you don't understand the problems your "solutions" only make things worse.
that completely ignore social and economic factors that may explain why certain groups are over-represented in the stats.
Are you sure it isn't biological factors that may explain why certain groups end up with certain social and economic outcomes?
Maybe race isn't a social construct so much as society is a racial construct?
You'd need a dedicated sociology PhD involved in every ML research project
This just reminds me of the political officers in the Red Army, who accompanied each unit to make sure everyone was good communist.
Are you suggesting crime rates are propaganda? Feed the computer the racial background of everyone incarcerated in America. Be shocked when it concludes blacks are more likely to be criminals.
"Chinese can only copy and make lower quality stuff" is this stupid arrogant colonialist misconception.
But isn't the point of the article that the Chinese have copied the western IP enforcement and court system?
Of course, but I'm talking about human perceptions of acceptable failure. And the magnifying glass of the media.
People are going to expect, "well, it's a robot! It should be perfect and if it's not then it's designed wrong and I'm going to sue and if I can't sue I'm going to make a huge stink about it!" The numbers of people dying is irrelevant in the same way the chances of getting bitten by a shark was irrelevant during that one "Summer of the Shark" when the news media focused on every single bite so people thought sharks were going nuts even though shark attacks were down that year.
My thesis is that one of the defining characteristics of "intelligence" is the ability to deal reliability with insufficient information and novel situations. But since the situations have insufficient information, it is necessary that whatever system is dealing with them will sometimes get the solution wrong, and crash the car. They will necessarily be fallible, and anything that can't make reasonably good decisions in the face of insufficient information is nothing we would call "intelligent."
So anything that's intelligent is something that can deal with insufficient information and novel situations, but anything that's dealing with such things is going to be wrong at times (because insufficient information). But humans do not tolerant unreliable machines like they tolerant imperfect humans, even if the unreliable machines are more reliable than the imperfect humans.
"Yes, you're getting forcibly fucked in the ass, but the dick's on the small side, so it's okay."
So no one should drive?
I just don't have any faith in a system that is not fully understood.
But intelligence and consciousness are not fully understood, and may not even be understandable. And I say that not to invoke some kind of mysticism, but because our decision making processes are lots of overlapping heuristics that are selected by yet other fuzzy heuristics. We have this expectation from sci-fi that a general purpose AI is going to be just like us except way faster and always right, but an awful lot of our intelligent behavior relies on making the best guess at the time with incomplete information. Rustling in bushes -> maybe a tiger -> run -> oh it was just a rabbit. Heuristics work until they don't.
It may be that an AI must be fallible, because to err is (to think like a) human. But forgiveness only extends to humans. When the human account representative at your bank mishears you you politely repeat yourself. When the automated system mishears you you curse all machines and demand to speak to a "real person." The real person may not be much better but it doesn't make you as angry when they mishear you. With automobile pilots we tolerate faulty humans whose decision-making processes we absolutely don't understand such that car crashes don't even make the news, but every car AI pilot fender bender will "raise deep questions about the suitability of robots to drive cars."
Is it classified information?
And *why* should a random company show its confidential internal data?
They're applying for government contracts, which is how this whole mess got started. The government says "you have to be X fair to chicks to get contracts" and so they need to show that they are at least X fair to chicks.
So GP is absolutely correct, beheadings don't come under the Copyright Act.
Well, not under the "offenses" section, but certainly under "penalties," right?
I guess the only thing worse than someone sending you a picture of their penis is no one wanting to send you a pic of their penis.
Even with moderator approval required before posts go public, are they seriously expecting VOLUNTARY MODERATORS to be able to recognize if a random picture in a random post belongs to the poster or not?
No, Mr. Poster. They expect you to shut up.
There's not much to worry about from the DMCA unless the terrorists are committing copyright infringement.
Just rapings, beheadings, crucifixions, setting people on fire...nothing near so bad as copyright infringement.
So that's why we're importing millions of barbarian savages into the west? To keep us safe from all those plagues we're having? k.
If a white Christian says something vile, it's just them exercising their right to free speech. If a brown Muslim does the same, the world is ending.
It seems like it's the other way around. Leftists are constantly scrutinizing anything their political enemies say for secret, coded racism, "dog whistles," anything they can use to accuse someone of thought crime, because maybe liking your own culture or ethnic group a little more than others is horrible and evil and you're a monster who should be ostracized from society. However, be a 7th century religious zealot from goatfucker land and say "Islam will dominate the world, we will kill all of you infidels for Allah, we will take your lands, your sons shall be our slaves and your daughters our whores" and the left thinks you're just swell, rolls out the red carpet for you and gives you keys to a truck.
In practice, 90% of what people mean when they say "race" is purely artificial social division.
But everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "a black guy" or "an asian guy" or "a white guy." Having to say "this collection of human haplogroups" or "individuals of recent European descent" is just a type of tone policing. The "race is just as social construct" talk only comes out when it's a right winger speaking about race. You'll never find the leftists chanting "The Social Construct of 'Black' Describing Human Haplogroups Common to Peoples of Recent African Descent's Lives Matter!"
"diversity is our strength"
I hate this saying. It is such a clear and obvious lie. Diversity is not, at all, a strength, but an exploitable weakness. At best, it is a challenge that requires enormous effort to overcome. If your neighborhood goes from having one culture to having ten, it is not stronger. Your neighborhood that used to agree on lots of things now has hundreds of potential conflicts, and it becomes very easy to exploit these differences to pit people against each other. The only reason to tell people that "diversity is a strength" is because you're trying to divide and conquer.
I miss the one Apple IIe in the back of every classroom that no one else knew how to use. "Computers are the future, and so we need them in the classroom!" and our school system bought one Apple IIe for each classroom, that sat there, unused.
In the 4th grade we had to do some project about the different types of biomes (tundra, desert, deciduous forest, rain forest, etc). So most people made a diorama or something. I wrote a quiz game in BASIC called "Name That Biome!" I included 20 questions from the textbook about the different biomes, and the program would pick 10 at random, ask them to the user, the user would enter their multiple choice answer, and then it would tell if you got it right or not, and then give you your score at the end. This was wizardy to the teacher, so I got a 100. And after that every year up through high school there was some project or another in one of my classes where I could just swap out the questions and the game became "Name That State!" "Name That Napoleonic Wars Battle!" Took only a few minutes and got an A every time. Good times.