3 ms·

> The least we can do is try to use this technology for social good. For example, a USC/Google team used computer vision tools to identify gender bias in modern

> The least we can do is try to use this technology for social good. For example, a USC/Google team used computer vision tools to identify gender bias in modern cinema That sounds entirely worthless. A social good involves helping somebody who needs aid. This proposal merely fills a perceived need by political dogmatics. This is exactly a sociopolitical memory leak.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> A social good involves helping somebody who needs aid. The citation provided by the parent post presents concrete claims about who is being helped and how. Here's my summary of the argument in the paper: 1. Gender bias exists in films (intro). 2. This bias has a tangible negative impact on women's lives (section titled "Role models on-screen make a difference"). 3. Quantifying this bias helps filmmakers create films that are less biased (section titled "How can this technology change things?") Summarily, women need aid because of how they are portrayed in films and quantifying/identifying bias helps portray women in a less damaging way. To be clear, I think it's entirely reasonable to disagree with any one of these assertions (esp the third)! But you don't present any opposing arguments, you just claim that the research doesn't meet a prime facie burden of "helping somebody who needs aid" even though the linked website goes to great lengths to make the case that it does meet this exact burden. > This proposal merely fills a perceived need by political dogmatics The same is true for surveillance technology, and military technology, and renewable energy technology, and even economic development. There are very few non-political notions of "social good". Defining and achieving "social good" is fundamentally a political act. If you want research to have an impact on the world, then you've got to be comfortable wading into the political. Because any time you change the world in non-trivial ways, politics is eventually at hand.
dang 8y ago
Please don't take HN threads into political flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mark_edward 8y ago
  You allow posts about mass surveillance technology yet it's supposed to remain apolitical. Disgusting
  - dang 8y ago
    From recent posts I gather that you don't want to use HN as intended, so I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bachbach 8y ago
  I will not, but I also didn't begin by introducing the tinder - he did. "USC/Google team used computer vision tools to identify gender bias in modern cinema" is waving a flag for a specific political belief that is not shared by most Westerners. Outside of the valley this is fringe stuff. The appropriate equivalent to this would be a right winger expressing concern at the 'appropriateness' of race mixing on camera (the hidden belief) - perhaps pointing out bias in the form of the black woman/white man duo being rare (potential legitimate issue). Suppose I applauded the use of computer vision to spot the frequency of black man/white woman pairs - I know you wouldn't consider that a neutral political perspective. tldr; Political neutrality is impossible when your attention is being dragged along by the current prevailing wisdom of the forum.
  - dang 8y ago
    That's true, but part of the art of posting a good HN comment, or at least not posting a bad one, is to resist reacting to the most provocative thing in a comment (other than possibly to downvote or flag it) and instead react to the most interesting thing, or not react at all. That's not easy for most of us, including me.

throwawayjava 8y ago

> A social good involves helping somebody who needs aid. The citation provided by the parent post presents concrete claims about who is being helped and how. Here's my summary of the argument in the paper: 1. Gender bias exists in films (intro). 2. This bias has a tangible negative impact on women's lives (section titled "Role models on-screen make a difference"). 3. Quantifying this bias helps filmmakers create films that are less biased (section titled "How can this technology change things?") Summarily, women need aid because of how they are portrayed in films and quantifying/identifying bias helps portray women in a less damaging way. To be clear, I think it's entirely reasonable to disagree with any one of these assertions (esp the third)! But you don't present any opposing arguments, you just claim that the research doesn't meet a prime facie burden of "helping somebody who needs aid" even though the linked website goes to great lengths to make the case that it does meet this exact burden. > This proposal merely fills a perceived need by political dogmatics The same is true for surveillance technology, and military technology, and renewable energy technology, and even economic development. There are very few non-political notions of "social good". Defining and achieving "social good" is fundamentally a political act. If you want research to have an impact on the world, then you've got to be comfortable wading into the political. Because any time you change the world in non-trivial ways, politics is eventually at hand.

dang 8y ago

Please don't take HN threads into political flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mark_edward 8y ago
You allow posts about mass surveillance technology yet it's supposed to remain apolitical. Disgusting
- dang 8y ago
  From recent posts I gather that you don't want to use HN as intended, so I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
bachbach 8y ago
I will not, but I also didn't begin by introducing the tinder - he did. "USC/Google team used computer vision tools to identify gender bias in modern cinema" is waving a flag for a specific political belief that is not shared by most Westerners. Outside of the valley this is fringe stuff. The appropriate equivalent to this would be a right winger expressing concern at the 'appropriateness' of race mixing on camera (the hidden belief) - perhaps pointing out bias in the form of the black woman/white man duo being rare (potential legitimate issue). Suppose I applauded the use of computer vision to spot the frequency of black man/white woman pairs - I know you wouldn't consider that a neutral political perspective. tldr; Political neutrality is impossible when your attention is being dragged along by the current prevailing wisdom of the forum.
- dang 8y ago
  That's true, but part of the art of posting a good HN comment, or at least not posting a bad one, is to resist reacting to the most provocative thing in a comment (other than possibly to downvote or flag it) and instead react to the most interesting thing, or not react at all. That's not easy for most of us, including me.