4 ms·

My argument is not tendentious. You're not addressing it. And software not working as well with a particular group as a result of the group having less common f

My argument is not tendentious. You're not addressing it. And software not working as well with a particular group as a result of the group having less common features is not a violation of human rights. It's an unfortunate reality of the finiteness of our resources and the limitations of our technology. Expanding the performance of the softare by focusing on how it performs with some arbitrarily selected subset of the group, rather than the whole of it, is misguided. >>If it costs a bit more to do the right thing, so be it. In this case, the cost is more lives being lost, and the right thing is only the right thing according to an arbitrary and flawed value system that you are submitting as the ideal.

mannykannot 8y ago
> ...arbitrary and flawed value system All ethical guidelines are, in some sense, arbitrary, but the one that says one should try to treat people equally is a pretty good one, and better than any that needs tendentious arguments to make. One of the reasons that it is a good one is that there is, as you have pointed out, an almost unlimited range of variation from which to fabricate tendentious arguments. Slippery-slope arguments are not, in general, very good ones, but in this case, the number of times that various factions have actually gone down the slope from "these people are not the same as us" to "it's better if we get rid of them" (just in the 20th. century, even) is good reason to stay away from it. And your argument is, indeed, tendentious -- too much for its own good, in fact. As, in your view, saving the most lives for a given expenditure is the only thing that matters, then all expenditure on facial recognition should immediately be redirected into life-saving activities that save more lives for the buck, of which there are plenty. But this is moot, because your arguments are just armchair pedantry, devoid of real-world relevance.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  >>All ethical guidelines are, in some sense, arbitrary, but the one that says one should try to treat people equally is a pretty good one If the software has a less than 100% success rate, then it does not treat people equally. What you're actually arguing is that inequality between ethnic/racial/gender groups is more important to eliminate than inequality between other groups. And the fact that you keep calling my argument tendentious is thoroughly intolerant and unconstructive. I see my position as a completely reasonable response to the topic at hand, and just because you have a different view on the issue, you attack my motives. >>because your arguments are just armchair pedantry, devoid of real-world relevance. You realize that trying to ridicule and demean people like this is a terrible way to address views you disagree with, right? Please don't act like this.
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    Well, I have given you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives here, and I continue to do so, because I will also assume that you think you are making a good argument. > What you're actually arguing is that inequality between ethnic/racial/gender groups is more important to eliminate than inequality between other groups. What I am actually arguing is for dealing with bias wherever we find it, and against your position that this is invalidated by possible existence of other biases, no matter how small, and even though they continue to be hypothetical. As I wrote in an earlier post, "if you have any actual evidence that the other groups you name are being measurably affected, make your data known, so we can make corrections in those cases as well." You have consistently failed to show any real-world evidence for your position. Ethics is primarily a matter of what people do in response to real-world situations, not some sort of hypothetical trolley problem from an intro. to philosophy course. Your argument is tendentious in the way it arbitrarily takes certain fixed positions, such as the above insistence on not doing anything unless you can guarantee 100% success, and your insistence that maximizing the number of lives saved being the only justification for expenditure, only so far as it justifies (in your view) doing nothing in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but no further. It is also rather telling that you seem to think that a noticeable bias with regard to gender, of all things, would be some sort of corner case (not that ethnicity and race are small issues, globally, either.) As for your excuses, in the other thread, for not showing evidence, well, evidence exists in the cases in question, so I will continue to regard your argument as a hypothetical one.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      >>What I am actually arguing is for dealing with bias wherever we find it, and against your position that this is invalidated by possible existence of other biases, no matter how small, and even though they continue to be hypothetical. The most efficient way to reduce all of what you call "biases", which are simply imperfections, is to reduce the total error rate. Prioritizing the error rate of one subset of the whole will be less efficient at reducing the total error rate, and that's what you do when you identify a disadvantaged group and change the development focus from reducing the total error rate to reducing the error rate for their subset. >>You have consistently failed to show any real-world evidence for your position. I've already addessed this argument. Repeating myself: I can't show real world numbers when the phenomenon in question can't have controlled experiments run on it, and I don't need to show real world numbers to make a case for the logical soundness of a principle, in this case the principle that prioritizing improvement of a metric other than overall performance will generally lead to less overall performance improvements than not doing so. >>Your argument is tendentious in the way it arbitrarily takes certain fixed positions, such as the above insistence on not doing anything unless you can guarantee 100% success, What are you referring to? >>and your insistence that maximizing the number of lives saved being the only justification for expenditure, only so far as it justifies (in your view) doing nothing in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but no further. Again I don't know what you're referring to. What do you mean when you say "only so far as it justifies [not focusing on reducing gender/racial disparities]"? You're alleging that my motivation for promoting the objective of maximizing the number of lives saved is to prevent action to reduce gender/racial disparities?

mannykannot 8y ago

> ...arbitrary and flawed value system All ethical guidelines are, in some sense, arbitrary, but the one that says one should try to treat people equally is a pretty good one, and better than any that needs tendentious arguments to make. One of the reasons that it is a good one is that there is, as you have pointed out, an almost unlimited range of variation from which to fabricate tendentious arguments. Slippery-slope arguments are not, in general, very good ones, but in this case, the number of times that various factions have actually gone down the slope from "these people are not the same as us" to "it's better if we get rid of them" (just in the 20th. century, even) is good reason to stay away from it. And your argument is, indeed, tendentious -- too much for its own good, in fact. As, in your view, saving the most lives for a given expenditure is the only thing that matters, then all expenditure on facial recognition should immediately be redirected into life-saving activities that save more lives for the buck, of which there are plenty. But this is moot, because your arguments are just armchair pedantry, devoid of real-world relevance.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
>>All ethical guidelines are, in some sense, arbitrary, but the one that says one should try to treat people equally is a pretty good one If the software has a less than 100% success rate, then it does not treat people equally. What you're actually arguing is that inequality between ethnic/racial/gender groups is more important to eliminate than inequality between other groups. And the fact that you keep calling my argument tendentious is thoroughly intolerant and unconstructive. I see my position as a completely reasonable response to the topic at hand, and just because you have a different view on the issue, you attack my motives. >>because your arguments are just armchair pedantry, devoid of real-world relevance. You realize that trying to ridicule and demean people like this is a terrible way to address views you disagree with, right? Please don't act like this.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  Well, I have given you the benefit of the doubt as to your motives here, and I continue to do so, because I will also assume that you think you are making a good argument. > What you're actually arguing is that inequality between ethnic/racial/gender groups is more important to eliminate than inequality between other groups. What I am actually arguing is for dealing with bias wherever we find it, and against your position that this is invalidated by possible existence of other biases, no matter how small, and even though they continue to be hypothetical. As I wrote in an earlier post, "if you have any actual evidence that the other groups you name are being measurably affected, make your data known, so we can make corrections in those cases as well." You have consistently failed to show any real-world evidence for your position. Ethics is primarily a matter of what people do in response to real-world situations, not some sort of hypothetical trolley problem from an intro. to philosophy course. Your argument is tendentious in the way it arbitrarily takes certain fixed positions, such as the above insistence on not doing anything unless you can guarantee 100% success, and your insistence that maximizing the number of lives saved being the only justification for expenditure, only so far as it justifies (in your view) doing nothing in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but no further. It is also rather telling that you seem to think that a noticeable bias with regard to gender, of all things, would be some sort of corner case (not that ethnicity and race are small issues, globally, either.) As for your excuses, in the other thread, for not showing evidence, well, evidence exists in the cases in question, so I will continue to regard your argument as a hypothetical one.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    >>What I am actually arguing is for dealing with bias wherever we find it, and against your position that this is invalidated by possible existence of other biases, no matter how small, and even though they continue to be hypothetical. The most efficient way to reduce all of what you call "biases", which are simply imperfections, is to reduce the total error rate. Prioritizing the error rate of one subset of the whole will be less efficient at reducing the total error rate, and that's what you do when you identify a disadvantaged group and change the development focus from reducing the total error rate to reducing the error rate for their subset. >>You have consistently failed to show any real-world evidence for your position. I've already addessed this argument. Repeating myself: I can't show real world numbers when the phenomenon in question can't have controlled experiments run on it, and I don't need to show real world numbers to make a case for the logical soundness of a principle, in this case the principle that prioritizing improvement of a metric other than overall performance will generally lead to less overall performance improvements than not doing so. >>Your argument is tendentious in the way it arbitrarily takes certain fixed positions, such as the above insistence on not doing anything unless you can guarantee 100% success, What are you referring to? >>and your insistence that maximizing the number of lives saved being the only justification for expenditure, only so far as it justifies (in your view) doing nothing in the case of ethnicity, race and gender, but no further. Again I don't know what you're referring to. What do you mean when you say "only so far as it justifies [not focusing on reducing gender/racial disparities]"? You're alleging that my motivation for promoting the objective of maximizing the number of lives saved is to prevent action to reduce gender/racial disparities?