5 ms·

Assuming that any individual can be judged, or their actions predicted, from generalizations based on their culture or socioeconomic status is quite literally t

by mreome 7y ago

Assuming that any individual can be judged, or their actions predicted, from generalizations based on their culture or socioeconomic status is quite literally the definition of racism. Using correlations with race and socioeconomic status as a filter by witch to deny people the chance to achieve, advanced, and change those correlations/generalizations, is the definition of systemic racism. If you act based on those kind of generalizations or correlations in a way that enforces them, you're not identifying a problem, you're creating/perpetuating it.

Reelin 7y ago
I agree with the sentiment you express, but I think there is some nuance of definition that should be clarified here. Deployed on a wide scale, the filters you describe would indeed constitute systemic racism. However, on an individual basis such practices would be more correctly termed profiling rather than racism since they lack intent. (This depends entirely on your definition of racism, of course, which it turns out can be quite difficult to pin down. [1]) I realize this may seem like splitting hairs since I ultimately agree with your overall point, but often such definitional issues result in a great deal of miscommunication and misunderstanding. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism
- wtvanhest 7y ago
  It also depends on your definition of intent. If you knowingly implement a system with flaws that make it systematically racist, you have intended to be racist.
  - ghettoimp 7y ago
    Hrmn. This makes it sound like you can only implement a systematically racist system if you are overtly/intentionally trying to be racist. I suspect in many cases, folks who implement racist systems simply do not care whether their system is racist or not. They want to optimize/automate whatever it is that they are about, and if the result is unfair, well, that's just someone else's problem.
    - wtvanhest 7y ago
      That is why I said ‘knowingly’
- mreome 7y ago
  Note that while I use/discuses the term racism here, I intend for this argument to apply to prejudice and systemic discrimination more broadly. I would personally argue against any definition of racism that discounts acts based on intent. Your source seems to start out trying to sort-out a kind of binary (trinary) fallacy, where it's arguing that there must be only a single valid definition of what qualifies as racist that can be used in any/all contexts, rather than just acknowledging that there are multiple ways to be racist, with varying degrees of intent/malice/severity/subtly and contextual applicability. It seems to reach that conclusion in the end though with "Overall We Probably Use A Combination Of All Of These, Weighted In Favor Of Definition By Motives." Beyond that, I’d argue that a more limited definition is dangerous as it allows people to argue/believe that a lack of blatantly malicious intent absolves them of the consequences of their acts. Broadly speaking, yes this would be accurately termed profiling. That is in no way mutually exclusive with being racist, given either of our definitions of racism. The developer of an AI profiling algorithm must make choices about what data is provided to that system, and others must make a choice to act based on the outputs of that system. The choice to include racial or socioeconomic criteria (or criteria that are proxies for these) as training data for a given model, and act on its outputs in ways that could contribute to systemic racism, could be done without malice or could be driven by blatantly racists motives. We just end up back at the same argument about the definition of racism. And again, I’d argue that the more limited definition is dangerous as it allows exactly what wlesieutre meant with “we've decided to deflect blame.” Allowing an act that leads to systemic racism to not qualify as racism without a clear blatant intent only serves to excuse those developing/using such systems for the consequences of their choices. Additionally, the narrower definition could actually discourage consideration of such consequences, as acting without any thought or consideration at all is acting without intent. Thus, willful or feigned ignorance becomes a defense against the furtherance of systemic racism.

by mreome 7y ago

Reelin 7y ago

I agree with the sentiment you express, but I think there is some nuance of definition that should be clarified here. Deployed on a wide scale, the filters you describe would indeed constitute systemic racism. However, on an individual basis such practices would be more correctly termed profiling rather than racism since they lack intent. (This depends entirely on your definition of racism, of course, which it turns out can be quite difficult to pin down. [1]) I realize this may seem like splitting hairs since I ultimately agree with your overall point, but often such definitional issues result in a great deal of miscommunication and misunderstanding. [1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism

wtvanhest 7y ago
It also depends on your definition of intent. If you knowingly implement a system with flaws that make it systematically racist, you have intended to be racist.
- ghettoimp 7y ago
  Hrmn. This makes it sound like you can only implement a systematically racist system if you are overtly/intentionally trying to be racist. I suspect in many cases, folks who implement racist systems simply do not care whether their system is racist or not. They want to optimize/automate whatever it is that they are about, and if the result is unfair, well, that's just someone else's problem.
  - wtvanhest 7y ago
    That is why I said ‘knowingly’
mreome 7y ago
Note that while I use/discuses the term racism here, I intend for this argument to apply to prejudice and systemic discrimination more broadly. I would personally argue against any definition of racism that discounts acts based on intent. Your source seems to start out trying to sort-out a kind of binary (trinary) fallacy, where it's arguing that there must be only a single valid definition of what qualifies as racist that can be used in any/all contexts, rather than just acknowledging that there are multiple ways to be racist, with varying degrees of intent/malice/severity/subtly and contextual applicability. It seems to reach that conclusion in the end though with "Overall We Probably Use A Combination Of All Of These, Weighted In Favor Of Definition By Motives." Beyond that, I’d argue that a more limited definition is dangerous as it allows people to argue/believe that a lack of blatantly malicious intent absolves them of the consequences of their acts. Broadly speaking, yes this would be accurately termed profiling. That is in no way mutually exclusive with being racist, given either of our definitions of racism. The developer of an AI profiling algorithm must make choices about what data is provided to that system, and others must make a choice to act based on the outputs of that system. The choice to include racial or socioeconomic criteria (or criteria that are proxies for these) as training data for a given model, and act on its outputs in ways that could contribute to systemic racism, could be done without malice or could be driven by blatantly racists motives. We just end up back at the same argument about the definition of racism. And again, I’d argue that the more limited definition is dangerous as it allows exactly what wlesieutre meant with “we've decided to deflect blame.” Allowing an act that leads to systemic racism to not qualify as racism without a clear blatant intent only serves to excuse those developing/using such systems for the consequences of their choices. Additionally, the narrower definition could actually discourage consideration of such consequences, as acting without any thought or consideration at all is acting without intent. Thus, willful or feigned ignorance becomes a defense against the furtherance of systemic racism.