3 ms·

Commenting specifically on the black names example: I am skeptical because they replicated the results of a study on humans based on the Implicit Association Te

Commenting specifically on the black names example: I am skeptical because they replicated the results of a study on humans based on the Implicit Association Test. I would be generous in calling that the Myers-Briggs of this generation, but it's probably even less valuable other in that it's free to take online so a huge data set is easily available.

Ar-Curunir 8y ago
Just because humans are biased doesn't mean we have to make our algorithms biased too. This is especially important now that AI and ML are starting to be deployed in non-CS cases.
- swingline-747 8y ago
  Sorry to disappoint, but that's impossible. Socialization is an ambiguous, imprecise activity that demands infinitely many judgements, inferences, and preconceived rules & goals. What can be interpreted as "jerk" behavior can also be caused by "dork" behavior, and vice-versa. A joke at someone's expense might be expressing affinity for them or dissing them. Adopting ebonics speech and tone in one context maybe in-group acceptable in one context, but insulting in another. Ultimately, the algorithms need enough trial-and-error socializing experience to become, for lack of a better term, cool.
microcolonel 8y ago
I fear you are too generous about the IAT. The results are like noise, even when taken by the same person repeatedly with different data.
disgruntledphd2 8y ago
Like, the IAT has problems, but it has been shown to have some predictive validity in behaviour. I am entirely unsurprised that the IAT finding replicated in this data, and it actually supports the structural racism explanation propounded by one of the measure's harshest critics. To be fair to the IAT, while it has very low test-retest reliability and lots and lots of state variance, there's definitely something in the reaction time differences that is meaningful. How meaningful it is, and whether or not it makes any practical difference remains to be determined. Anyone who hasn't done one, try this link and see how you feel during the process: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html And at least there wasn't a massive profit motive behind the IAT, at the beginning anyway :)

Ar-Curunir 8y ago

Just because humans are biased doesn't mean we have to make our algorithms biased too. This is especially important now that AI and ML are starting to be deployed in non-CS cases.

swingline-747 8y ago
Sorry to disappoint, but that's impossible. Socialization is an ambiguous, imprecise activity that demands infinitely many judgements, inferences, and preconceived rules & goals. What can be interpreted as "jerk" behavior can also be caused by "dork" behavior, and vice-versa. A joke at someone's expense might be expressing affinity for them or dissing them. Adopting ebonics speech and tone in one context maybe in-group acceptable in one context, but insulting in another. Ultimately, the algorithms need enough trial-and-error socializing experience to become, for lack of a better term, cool.

microcolonel 8y ago

I fear you are too generous about the IAT. The results are like noise, even when taken by the same person repeatedly with different data.

disgruntledphd2 8y ago

Like, the IAT has problems, but it has been shown to have some predictive validity in behaviour. I am entirely unsurprised that the IAT finding replicated in this data, and it actually supports the structural racism explanation propounded by one of the measure's harshest critics. To be fair to the IAT, while it has very low test-retest reliability and lots and lots of state variance, there's definitely something in the reaction time differences that is meaningful. How meaningful it is, and whether or not it makes any practical difference remains to be determined. Anyone who hasn't done one, try this link and see how you feel during the process: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html And at least there wasn't a massive profit motive behind the IAT, at the beginning anyway :)