5 ms·

Your second paragraph explains why Google, the search tool, has a striking history of bias against black women, by stating "search is a reflection of [..] how t

Your second paragraph explains why Google, the search tool, has a striking history of bias against black women, by stating "search is a reflection of [..] how terrible we are". Your third paragraph explains that Google, the company, spends time and money on correcting bias. I don't think that's news to the author, or a refutation. She says tech companies produce tools in environments of racism/sexism, without proper safeguards, and the result is damaging to people of color and women. She's saying Google can and should consider this stuff in advance, and take responsibility for bias in their products (even when it's the reflection of ugliness in third parties as you said). So, I don't see your perspective as being in conflict with her. Except inasmuch as you excuse Google for reflecting our biases. Do you think they should feel OK if their next AI winds up with our biases? If so, why? It doesn't feel like you've explained that.

brighteyes 9y ago
I didn't see that comment as excusing anything. I think we all agree Google should do as much as possible to improve results. But at the same time, if Google gets it right 99 times out of 100, the 100th is what will get an article like this written on it. That doesn't excuse that, it explains why it happens. > Your second paragraph explains why Google, the search tool, has a striking history of bias against black women The article says "Google has a striking history of racism", which you interpret as "Google results have included things which are strikingly racist." That's one interpretation, but it seems equally valid to interpret "Google has a striking history of racism" with "Google has been very racist" (after all, if I said, "Bob has a striking history of racism" you'd be right to assume I think Bob is a racist). I think some of the controversy around this article stems from these interpretations, one of which is a far worse accusation than the other.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > if Google gets it right 99 times out of 100, the 100th is what will get an article like this written on it Is there any substantive basis for this claim? My impression is that Google gets away with a lot.

brighteyes 9y ago

I didn't see that comment as excusing anything. I think we all agree Google should do as much as possible to improve results. But at the same time, if Google gets it right 99 times out of 100, the 100th is what will get an article like this written on it. That doesn't excuse that, it explains why it happens. > Your second paragraph explains why Google, the search tool, has a striking history of bias against black women The article says "Google has a striking history of racism", which you interpret as "Google results have included things which are strikingly racist." That's one interpretation, but it seems equally valid to interpret "Google has a striking history of racism" with "Google has been very racist" (after all, if I said, "Bob has a striking history of racism" you'd be right to assume I think Bob is a racist). I think some of the controversy around this article stems from these interpretations, one of which is a far worse accusation than the other.

forapurpose 9y ago
> if Google gets it right 99 times out of 100, the 100th is what will get an article like this written on it Is there any substantive basis for this claim? My impression is that Google gets away with a lot.