4 ms·
Wow, the responses to this thread are such an excellent marker for skin colour. I don't know the Google stats, but as far as labeling black women as male, Amaz
by he11ow 7y ago
Wow, the responses to this thread are such an excellent marker for skin colour.
I don't know the Google stats, but as far as labeling black women as male, Amazon and IBM get it wrong 30% of the time. Microsoft errs in 21% of test cases. As for Google's rates, not all that long ago they were labeling black people as gorillas so... [0]
Put it another way, how impressed would your boss be if you were to say "Yo, I've nailed this. I've got a kick ass algorithm, check this out. Oh, yeah, it fucks up 30% of the time."
Bias in AI is bad, but what makes it much much worse is arrogant attitudes claiming it doesn't exist.
And you know what, that speaks to the idiocy around AI more than anything. All these debates on AGI are moot, because people are already so keen to believe they got it all figured out it doesn't even matter if the actual tech is any good at all.
[0] https://www.wired.com/story/photo-algorithms-id-white-men-fineblack-women-not-so-much/ https://www.wired.com/story/photo-algorithms-id-white-men-fi...
- raxxorrax 7y ago> Wow, the responses to this thread are such an excellent marker for skin colour. As is pronouncing the effects of bias and prejudice. You can almost guarantee the person is white without using any AI. I was or still am pretty critical of AI since the quantification of every property of people will probably not be very enjoyable for anyone. What changed my mind a bit is that there are people wanting to employ it to improve reality. That is far worse and I hadn't had that on my radar before.