3 ms·
It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings.
by zawerf 8y ago
It's definitely a problem worth alleviating. But it is "triggering" because it is an open problem to determine whether a bias is harmful, even for human beings. So it becomes an impossible/unreasonable amount of extra work if you demand it as a prerequisite.
For example, in your translation tool example, even a human translator would have trouble making the least offensive translation possible. She/he/(insert favorite pronoun here) would need to realize the audience is a young impressionable child who is about to base her entire world-view on whether there's statistically more of her gender in that one sentence of translation.
For a machine learning algorithm to understand enough about human nature to not offend the parent of that child, you're better off waiting for AGI that can surpass human tact.
- cromwellian 8y agoYou don't think a black person trying to use a photo management app and having their children's photos miscategorized as gorillas is harmful? We know what biases people say offend them already, there's no evidence fixing them is harmful, but a non-zero risk that not fixing them is harmful. I feel like what I'm encountering is a conservative bias against changing the status quo, "social engineering", and the like. It seems people don't like deliberate, non-organic, changes to the status quo (well, they don't tend to like organic ones either, like succeeding generations becoming say, more sexually liberal) Machine learning can create filter bubbles, echo chambers, feedback loops, and people may attribute more weight to answers provided by machines than people, and so having machine learning reinforce even more strongly, current cultural biases that we're already seeking politically to ameliorate seems prudent and pragmatic to try and balance.