4 ms·

> Or a means to Defund The Police, if that's your thing. Are there many sincere researchers studying flaws in facial recognition advocating its unequivocal ban

> Or a means to Defund The Police, if that's your thing. Are there many sincere researchers studying flaws in facial recognition advocating its unequivocal ban forever? Joy Boulamwini: > At a minimum, Congress should require all Federal agencies and organizations using Federal funding to disclose current use of face-based technologies. We cannot afford to operate in the dark. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36663/pdf/CHRG-116hhrg36663.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-116hhrg36663/pdf/CH... Timnit Gebru in the NYTimes: > Do you see a way to use facial recognition for law enforcement and security responsibly? > It should be banned at the moment. I don’t know about the future. https://archive.is/JqiqP https://archive.is/JqiqP Are the flaws Algorithmic Justice League finding real? Someone has definitely been wrongly accused by a facial recognition error (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recognition-arrest.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/technology/facial-recogni...). Is there certainly an impression that activists want a forever ban? Yes, Joy Buolomwini and Timnit Gebru are frequently represented as advocating against even "perfect" facial recognition. It's true, lawyers tend to advocate for a forever ban. I don't think these researchers advocate for a forever ban. If you read their raw words, they are much more intellectually honest than the press allows. Is your line of thinking co-opted by people acting in bad faith? Certainly. You would feel very differently about the deployment of the system if you were so much more likely to be falsely accused by it due to the color of your skin. Every intellectually honest person's opinion of the justice system eventually matures. You'll come around to delegating authority to researchers over lawyers and police.

hik 5y ago
Timnit Gebru is not a sincere researcher, in any respect. She has proven to be willing to act in bad faith on numerous occassions when she is losing an argument. Not to say that a researcher is forbidden to hold any political opinions whatsoever - but her research is primarily political activism, and when political activism goes into research, what you get out is political activism, not research. The whole Algorithmic Justice League concept is the process of overstating the impact of difficult-to-handle problems in order to secure laudable research positions and book deals. Which - there actually should be someone willing to pose those arguments, but treating them as sincere researchers and not motivated
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  I don't know dude. I understand there are a lot of impressions. For the purpose of furthering curiosity, it was easy to punch in their positions into Google and read their raw, reasonable words. You're welcome to highlight a bad faith argument, in the raw words.
  - hik 5y ago
    The bad faith argument was losing an internal fight with other Googlers and deciding to go public in the hopes the social media mobs would force management to capitulate to her ideas.

hik 5y ago

Timnit Gebru is not a sincere researcher, in any respect. She has proven to be willing to act in bad faith on numerous occassions when she is losing an argument. Not to say that a researcher is forbidden to hold any political opinions whatsoever - but her research is primarily political activism, and when political activism goes into research, what you get out is political activism, not research. The whole Algorithmic Justice League concept is the process of overstating the impact of difficult-to-handle problems in order to secure laudable research positions and book deals. Which - there actually should be someone willing to pose those arguments, but treating them as sincere researchers and not motivated

an_opabinia 5y ago
I don't know dude. I understand there are a lot of impressions. For the purpose of furthering curiosity, it was easy to punch in their positions into Google and read their raw, reasonable words. You're welcome to highlight a bad faith argument, in the raw words.
- hik 5y ago
  The bad faith argument was losing an internal fight with other Googlers and deciding to go public in the hopes the social media mobs would force management to capitulate to her ideas.