4 ms·

The word 'bias' implies that the belief is incorrect. If the information is correct, it shouldn't be called a bias. It is simply a conclusion. For example: "It

by Banthum 10y ago

The word 'bias' implies that the belief is incorrect. If the information is correct, it shouldn't be called a bias. It is simply a conclusion. For example: "It also tended to associate "woman" and "girl" with the arts rather than with mathematics." This is a correct and valid conclusion. In all societies, women tend to engage in artistic activity more, while men engage in mathematical/systemic study more. (This is even more true in places which are more free like Scandinavia, than it is in less-free places like Iran. Iran has more women in tech studies.) An AI learning this is a success, not a 'bias'. It doesn't mean no women should study these things; it's not a statement about what should be at all. It's simply an observation about the physical configuration of the world. II What these researchers are really discovering is that AI thinks without morals, and that this reveals the barriers that their own moral convictions and ideologies have placed in their minds. An AI has no fear, so it's not afraid of reaching contrarian or politically-incorrect conclusions. It doesn't know social pressure, so it doesn't know to manipulate its impressions to follow the socially-acceptable beliefs. It doesn't know about the Overton window. It has no concept that its conclusions might lead to some undesirable outcome. It doesn't do motivated reasoning. It doesn't understand the concept of should. It simply describes the world (through the lens of the data available to it). What they've discovered is not that the AI is becoming biased, but that they are biased since they're not willing to reach morally-forbidden facts. Their own bias appears because they've signed up to the reprehensible idea that the only reason people should be treated equally is because people are the same. Which is absurd. The correct morality here is: people are different and we should treat them equally anyway. III "To understand the possible implications, one only need look at the Pulitzer Prize finalist "Machine Bias" series by ProPublica that showed how a computer program designed to predict future criminals is biased against black people." Of course it is. Black people are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore, like being male or being young, being black is a factor that one can apply predictively to an estimate of someone's likelihood to commit crimes. This is definitely true, it's just that people 'mindkill' themselves into not seeing it because most people are willing to blind their minds to fit into a socially-accepted morality and thus achieve personal benefit. What's the point in believing the truth if it doesn't benefit you? Of course, being male or young are both just as inherent and unchangeable as being black. But nobody is going to complain when the machine realizes that youth and maleness predict criminality. We all know which facts are permissible and which facts are immoral, and thus forbidden. Religion never went away, it just became non-theistic. If medieval Christians invented and AI that concluded there was no God, you can be sure they'd want to 'fix' its 'bias' too. IV Language lesson of the day! Fact: A piece of knowledge which is morally acceptable. Bias: A piece of knowledge which is morally unacceptable.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
And here we have an example of one of the very few people saying anything actually worth listening to. Expect to be hanged for this. Edited to add: I shouldn't write comments like this as they aren't in the spirit of HN's guidelines of actually contributing to the conversation. So, what I mean to say is: I appreciate comments like this and feel the parent comment hits the nail on the head. The parent comment is, in my mind anyway, such a great conclusion to the whole topic that it become a conversation-killer. What else is there to be said? We all have a lot of things in common and some difference. If we don't end this quest to same-arise everyone then, eventually, only one of us will be necessary. And what would be the point of that.
zepto 10y ago
"Black people are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore, like being male or being young, being black is a factor that one can apply predictively to an estimate of someone's likelihood to commit crimes. This is definitely true" Actually this is definitely false. You can use the statistic to estimate the probability that a black person selected at random from the population will have already committed a crime. Given an individual black person who has not committed a crime, their being black does cause them to be more likely to commit a crime in future. Blackness is not a predictor of criminality, even though black people are more likely to have been in environments that lead to criminality. You simply don't understand causality and prediction. Your logic is literally the logic of racism - which is to treat people as if their race was causal.
- nnfy 10y ago
  >Blackness is not a predictor of criminality, even though black people are more likely to have been in environments that lead to criminality. And your logic is that of nonsensical political correctness. You concede that these environments are more likely to lead to criminality, you conceded that black people are more likely to exist in these environments, yet you refuse to see that if A->B and B->C then A->C. Let's instead consider, since you do allow that race is predictive of previous criminality, if the circumstances which have created increased chance for previous criminality have not changed, why is it invalid to presume that the same predictors are then valid for future probability? Do you also pretend that credit scores are not statistically accurate predictors of repayment potential? These kinds of mental gymnastics are detrimental for all parties involved.

by Banthum 10y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

And here we have an example of one of the very few people saying anything actually worth listening to. Expect to be hanged for this. Edited to add: I shouldn't write comments like this as they aren't in the spirit of HN's guidelines of actually contributing to the conversation. So, what I mean to say is: I appreciate comments like this and feel the parent comment hits the nail on the head. The parent comment is, in my mind anyway, such a great conclusion to the whole topic that it become a conversation-killer. What else is there to be said? We all have a lot of things in common and some difference. If we don't end this quest to same-arise everyone then, eventually, only one of us will be necessary. And what would be the point of that.

zepto 10y ago

"Black people are more likely to commit crimes. Therefore, like being male or being young, being black is a factor that one can apply predictively to an estimate of someone's likelihood to commit crimes. This is definitely true" Actually this is definitely false. You can use the statistic to estimate the probability that a black person selected at random from the population will have already committed a crime. Given an individual black person who has not committed a crime, their being black does cause them to be more likely to commit a crime in future. Blackness is not a predictor of criminality, even though black people are more likely to have been in environments that lead to criminality. You simply don't understand causality and prediction. Your logic is literally the logic of racism - which is to treat people as if their race was causal.

nnfy 10y ago
>Blackness is not a predictor of criminality, even though black people are more likely to have been in environments that lead to criminality. And your logic is that of nonsensical political correctness. You concede that these environments are more likely to lead to criminality, you conceded that black people are more likely to exist in these environments, yet you refuse to see that if A->B and B->C then A->C. Let's instead consider, since you do allow that race is predictive of previous criminality, if the circumstances which have created increased chance for previous criminality have not changed, why is it invalid to presume that the same predictors are then valid for future probability? Do you also pretend that credit scores are not statistically accurate predictors of repayment potential? These kinds of mental gymnastics are detrimental for all parties involved.