4 ms·

Some context: They dont mention it directly but I think this refers back to this thread last september https://twitter.com/colinmadland/status/1307111816250748

Some context: They dont mention it directly but I think this refers back to this thread last september https://twitter.com/colinmadland/status/1307111816250748933 https://twitter.com/colinmadland/status/1307111816250748933 (Note the thread displays differently now because Twitter have changed their cropping algorithm) Originally @colinmadland was trying to post examples of how Zoom virtual background had removed his black colleagues head, however when he posted the side-by-side images (with heads) on Twitter, twitter always cropped out his colleague and just showed him, even if he horizontally swapped the image. So, while trying to talk about an apparently racist algorithm in Zoom, he was scuppered by an apparently racist algorithim in Twitter. It was widely covered in the press at the time https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/21/twitter-apologises-for-racist-image-cropping-algorithm https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/sep/21/twitter-a...

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Here's an example that still works: https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20 https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20
- fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
  The web version shows Mitch, but the app shows a blank white (which is at the center of the image, meaning it didn’t try to crop to one of the faces). I’m on iOS.
- yxhuvud 5y ago
  That example is from last September, so it doesn't say anything on if it is improved or not. They probably generate the cropping once, on posting the tweet.
- cbsks 5y ago
  Yet another reason why the Nitter UI is better… https://nitter.cc/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20 https://nitter.cc/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20
nyberg 5y ago
I find that calling it a `racist algorithm` doesn't really do it any good unless the behaviour was intentional. This is a case of poor training data the same as google image classification messing up with tags.
- staticshock 5y ago
  Plenty of racism in humans isn't malicious, either, but is just a byproduct of bad training data. The outcome is bad regardless of what was intended, and it's the outcome that matters.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    I think plenty of people would say it is the intention that matters far more than the outcome.
    - tobr 5y ago
      Matters how? If someone has the best of intentions but ends up creating a bad outcome, it’s still more important to fix that than to change the opinion of, say, a closeted bigot who has no effect on anyone else. (Yes, real life has more shades of gray than that, and both things are important in practice, because bad intentions don’t tend to lead to good outcomes while good intentions definitely can lead to bad outcomes.) As an aside, “I think plenty of people would say X” is not a very good way to phrase an opinion. It’s ok to say you would say X and argue for it, rather than ascribe the opinion to some undefined group of other people.
- sascha_sl 5y ago
  Racism as a concept has evolved in meaning. It used to only include the most severe intentional cases of bigoted behavior, whereas now it also includes less obvious biases that lead to preventable but not necessarily intentional instances of everyday prejudice and bigotry. I am for one happy we have unneutered the word from having to reach a bar so high, it wouldn't apply to most bigotry, but it is also unfortunate for people who have not caught on and believe calling a thing racist is a damning statement of evil intent, but it really is not anymore. Or those that insist on meaning of words remaining static forever.
underwater 5y ago
The Zoom example is a racist algorithm. It was built using a against a data set that produced different results for different skin colours. The Twitter example was not a racist algorithm. It would consistently pick one head over the other, but it had nothing to do with the skin colour. It might preference the black head for some pairs, and the white head for other pairs. In the second example people anthropomorphised the algorithm. They assumed that any example of a preference for an images was due to a racial bias. It was easy to keep feeding it images to get to an input that confirmed this assumption.

SiempreViernes 5y ago

Here's an example that still works: https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20 https://twitter.com/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
The web version shows Mitch, but the app shows a blank white (which is at the center of the image, meaning it didn’t try to crop to one of the faces). I’m on iOS.
yxhuvud 5y ago
That example is from last September, so it doesn't say anything on if it is improved or not. They probably generate the cropping once, on posting the tweet.
cbsks 5y ago
Yet another reason why the Nitter UI is better… https://nitter.cc/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20 https://nitter.cc/bascule/status/1307440596668182528?s=20

nyberg 5y ago

I find that calling it a `racist algorithm` doesn't really do it any good unless the behaviour was intentional. This is a case of poor training data the same as google image classification messing up with tags.

staticshock 5y ago
Plenty of racism in humans isn't malicious, either, but is just a byproduct of bad training data. The outcome is bad regardless of what was intended, and it's the outcome that matters.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  I think plenty of people would say it is the intention that matters far more than the outcome.
  - tobr 5y ago
    Matters how? If someone has the best of intentions but ends up creating a bad outcome, it’s still more important to fix that than to change the opinion of, say, a closeted bigot who has no effect on anyone else. (Yes, real life has more shades of gray than that, and both things are important in practice, because bad intentions don’t tend to lead to good outcomes while good intentions definitely can lead to bad outcomes.) As an aside, “I think plenty of people would say X” is not a very good way to phrase an opinion. It’s ok to say you would say X and argue for it, rather than ascribe the opinion to some undefined group of other people.
sascha_sl 5y ago
Racism as a concept has evolved in meaning. It used to only include the most severe intentional cases of bigoted behavior, whereas now it also includes less obvious biases that lead to preventable but not necessarily intentional instances of everyday prejudice and bigotry. I am for one happy we have unneutered the word from having to reach a bar so high, it wouldn't apply to most bigotry, but it is also unfortunate for people who have not caught on and believe calling a thing racist is a damning statement of evil intent, but it really is not anymore. Or those that insist on meaning of words remaining static forever.

underwater 5y ago

The Zoom example is a racist algorithm. It was built using a against a data set that produced different results for different skin colours. The Twitter example was not a racist algorithm. It would consistently pick one head over the other, but it had nothing to do with the skin colour. It might preference the black head for some pairs, and the white head for other pairs. In the second example people anthropomorphised the algorithm. They assumed that any example of a preference for an images was due to a racial bias. It was easy to keep feeding it images to get to an input that confirmed this assumption.