>A more direct interpretation of her statement would be "we don't like Trump". How about we just not make any interpretation until Veritas, known for deliberat

>A more direct interpretation of her statement would be "we don't like Trump". How about we just not make any interpretation until Veritas, known for deliberate -- to be charitable -- "creative" editing in the past, releases the full unedited exchange without cherry picked statements out of context? "So, in Swedish search results, how do we represent the image of 'Doctor'? " How about a GAN-generated of an doctor with randomized features? The issue isn't really imagery, past instances of bias in machine learned text results has translated for example, gender pronouns according to historical bias, so if you translate foreign language text containing doctor, sometimes even female doctors, it'll end up replacing with male pronouns. >I interpret as 're-writing information to suit my view of the world and how it ought to be' How about rewriting it so it fits categorical definitions? The definition of a doctor does not specify gender or race, so any automatically generated extracted knowledge should not leak cultural bias. > mostly by virtue of the fact there's very few Black people in Sweden of course Geo-centric thinking. Google is a global service. People in Africa search for doctors. People in Asia search for doctors. So why should every query return a white, male, doctor? Shouldn't a global service either a) be localized to return culturally relevant results for the context of the region or b) be internationalized so that it returns unbiased results that can be applied anywhere? The problem is when a Swedish engineering office ships a feature to Google globally, and all of a sudden, their own cultural biases turn up globally. This isn't just social justice, it's bad for business! This is a classic example of why there is strength in diversity hiring, and monoculture is bad if you're a global brand.