6 ms·

>so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Which is precisely why blacks are "profiled" or

>so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Which is precisely why blacks are "profiled" or "targetted" even by computers. And yet the media tells us this is because "AI is racist" and because of the "legacy of colonialism" and absurd nonsense like that.

fossuser 8y ago
That’s a jump that is a problem. The issue is that the pattern matching reinforces the problem based on race when race is not the cause. There are lots of historical reasons someone could be be a bad credit risk for example, but it isn’t because they’re black or some other race. You want the algorithm to account for cause not correlated patterns that reinforce racial divisions and then perpetuate the inequality.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".
  - fossuser 8y ago
    That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference and overfit to patterns in the data. Our learning shares a similar problem to ML. When you don’t correct for this it hurts people of that race and helps to perpetuate the imbalance - reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.
    - deialtrous 8y ago
      >It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. I didn't say it was. I said it was because of race. Skin color is only one of hundreds of measurable objective racial differences. What does it say about your argument that it rests on such a terrible strawman? >It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn It is abundantly clear: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png >Your comments are why it’s a problem You are simply stating there is a problem with no evidence to support your statement. Blacks commit more crime. The fact that they get arrested more is due to their committing more crime, not due to "racism". >reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality. There is no evidence to support your belief. Holding black people to the same standard as white people when they are genetically incapable of meeting that standard seems like a much bigger problem, which causes conflict and violence, far larger problems than a completely irrational belief that inequality is somehow unnatural and societally imposed.
      - zimpenfish 8y ago
        > It is abundantly clear https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories." "Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned." etc.etc.
        deialtrous 8y ago
        https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/lewontins-fallacy/ https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l... You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct groups. The fact that this oft repeated myth is so commonly addressed that it is a named fallacy should be an indication that it warrants a little investigation into its accuracy. Here's a handy graph to help visualize how Lewontin's claim is dishonest and false: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0306987709005374-gr1.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03069877090053... If you want to argue about the science, please research the subject first. There's no way anyone could do even a cursory bit of research and not come across this as it has been beaten to death, resurrected, and re-beaten to death.

fossuser 8y ago

That’s a jump that is a problem. The issue is that the pattern matching reinforces the problem based on race when race is not the cause. There are lots of historical reasons someone could be be a bad credit risk for example, but it isn’t because they’re black or some other race. You want the algorithm to account for cause not correlated patterns that reinforce racial divisions and then perpetuate the inequality.

deialtrous 8y ago
You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".
- fossuser 8y ago
  That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference and overfit to patterns in the data. Our learning shares a similar problem to ML. When you don’t correct for this it hurts people of that race and helps to perpetuate the imbalance - reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    >It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. I didn't say it was. I said it was because of race. Skin color is only one of hundreds of measurable objective racial differences. What does it say about your argument that it rests on such a terrible strawman? >It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn It is abundantly clear: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png >Your comments are why it’s a problem You are simply stating there is a problem with no evidence to support your statement. Blacks commit more crime. The fact that they get arrested more is due to their committing more crime, not due to "racism". >reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality. There is no evidence to support your belief. Holding black people to the same standard as white people when they are genetically incapable of meeting that standard seems like a much bigger problem, which causes conflict and violence, far larger problems than a completely irrational belief that inequality is somehow unnatural and societally imposed.
    - zimpenfish 8y ago
      > It is abundantly clear https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories." "Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned." etc.etc.
      - deialtrous 8y ago
        https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/lewontins-fallacy/ https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l... You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct groups. The fact that this oft repeated myth is so commonly addressed that it is a named fallacy should be an indication that it warrants a little investigation into its accuracy. Here's a handy graph to help visualize how Lewontin's claim is dishonest and false: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0306987709005374-gr1.jpg https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03069877090053... If you want to argue about the science, please research the subject first. There's no way anyone could do even a cursory bit of research and not come across this as it has been beaten to death, resurrected, and re-beaten to death.