5 ms·
> It's so blatantly sexist and wrong it's almost funny again. Have you considered that it's blatantly sexist and right? I.e., that perhaps no-one programmed t
by wtbob 10y ago
> It's so blatantly sexist and wrong it's almost funny again.
Have you considered that it's blatantly sexist and right? I.e., that perhaps no-one programmed the ad network to associate sewing kits with handbags, makeup & high-heeled shoes, that perhaps the ad serving AIs learnt that on their own?
I wonder what we'll do when our AIs come to socially-unacceptable-but-true conclusions. Humans can be brow-beaten or persuaded into ignoring the truth systematically, but computers have to either have each bit of truth-denying programmed into them, or have much better intelligence and spend much more CPU calculating at a higher level in order to avoid socially-unacceptable truths.
- creshal 10y ago> Have you considered that it's blatantly sexist and right? I buy an average of a hundred items on Amazon a year, among them all my – male – clothes. Your algorithms are just plain shit when a single purchase five years ago is somehow weighed more than the whole rest.
- VLM 10y agoI buy my wife and daughter gifts using Amazon. I don't think its unreasonable or sexist or evil for an advertiser to assume I'll continue to buy gifts for my wife and daughter. If the algorithm makes money I don't see the problem.
- apk17 10y agoThe algorithm guesses that your wife is doing the ordering, and is targeting her.
- creshal 10y agoSo the algorithm isn't even able to differentiate between the buying behaviour of a married couple and a single male living alone, with roughly 10 years worth of buying history to judge from? I'd fire the department responsible for that waste of money.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]