5 ms·
It's not racist and to say as such is just stupid. The model might be a poor but it has no concept of race. And actually think implying that the authors of the
by Guthur 6y ago
It's not racist and to say as such is just stupid. The model might be a poor but it has no concept of race.
And actually think implying that the authors of the algo and model are racist equally stupid.
- chapium 6y agoI thought he was being cheeky to be honest.
- notadog 6y agoWhile I doubt that this was the intent of the programmers responsible, it doesn't change the fact that people are being discriminated against because of their skin color.
- neilsense 6y agoThis is not racial discrimination, it's a bug with a piece of software. There are many bugs with software, because behind it are human beings that are being pressured in many ways to ship said software. Behind all of this is a pretty badly tested library that someone took off GitHub and dumped into Zoom. There is no ill-intent. If we consider every little thing as racism, we remove the weight of the word and what it actually should be used for. The end of that road being that everyone cries racism for everything and we all become indifferent to hearing the term.
- dwaltrip 6y agoIt’s more than a simple bug. It’s a design flaw that results in mistreatment for people of certain skin colors. You are likely correct that the intent was not malicious. This is no excuse. Throughout history, everyone believes they are doing the right thing or are properly justified, even when heinous acts are being committed. We are master story tellers, and we tell the most twisted stories to ourselves. At the end of the day, the impact that our actions have matters a lot more than our best intentions.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- foxdev 6y agoThe cackling villain style of racism is mostly dying with Lee Atwater's generation. The human systems they installed perpetuate it with such subtlety that people can train an algorithm nearly 100% on white faces and not even realize it or think about why those are the most available faces to them. And when they realize it, it's so hard to fix. This is why the academic definition of racism focuses on systems and the ways people unwittingly perpetuate it rather than trying to assign individual blame. That definition clashes with the definition most people think of where there's someone doing it on purpose.
- staplers 6y agoRacism doesn't require malicious intent. It can arise from simple ignorance. If the algorithm was modeled to include many different races I doubt this would be a problem.
- aardshark 6y agoSo in your opinion nobody is racist here? This case does not demonstrate racial bias? Assuming this is not a once off, the situation certainly implies that either the people who developed the algorithm or the people who made the decision to use it in their product either didn't test that it worked for darker skin colours or worse, they knew the faults but didn't care enough not to use it. That's racism to me.
- happytoexplain 6y agoYou've not included any content in your argument, while the people you're calling stupid have. It's possible to argue about racism or lack thereof in a rational way, just like any other topic. It doesn't have to be hostile right off the bat every single time.
- bsanr2 6y agoYour algorithm is trained on your racially disparate status quo and outputs racially disparate results. If your intent was race-neutral outputs, then you screwed up and the algorithm is implicitly racist. If your intent was outputs racially-biased towards fair-skinned people, then you're explicitly racist and your algorithm is still implicitly racist. Take your pick.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]