16 ms·

You should be allowed to think and perceive and notice things, and use tools to help you do so. It is ridiculous to mandate algorithms should be modified to hid

You should be allowed to think and perceive and notice things, and use tools to help you do so. It is ridiculous to mandate algorithms should be modified to hide statistical facts about the world. by all means, educate people that just because some population is perhaps on average more criminal, it doesn't imply any individual belonging to that population is also more criminal. To hide the statistics would also hurt efforts to find solutions. That can not be a good thing. Edit: if you don't like the criminal example, what about noticing some populations are on average poorer than others? Would that be a good thing, because government money could be diverted their way, or a bad thing, because banks would be less inclined to lend them money, and landlords would be less likely to rent them a home?

mustafa_pasi 5y ago
The point of contention is not whether ugly statistical data should be hidden away. That is a stupid conspiracy theory. Sociologists have no problem publishing all kinds of ugly statistical data. The problems start when for profit entities or governments, start deciding to discriminate against individuals because they belong to certain groups. Statistical data applied to individuals is always going to result in injustice. The thought of the economy at large, or the government reducing an individual to a few datapoints and deciding their fate based on group statistics is just about the scariest communist dystopian nightmare, as far as I am concerned. It robs people of their own humanity.
- chroem- 5y ago
  You can't just call everything you don't like a conspiracy theory. I have seen plenty of people on HN arguing for censorship of unflattering statistics to achieve social justice goals. Why not just work on fixing the causes of the unflattering statistics in real life, rather than inventing a new framework to make ML models provide less accurate predictions? How do you know these manual override techniques aren't introducing inequity somewhere else in the model? Pareto optimality seems like it should be a very real concern here.
  - nl 5y ago
    > I have seen plenty of people on HN arguing for censorship of unflattering statistics to achieve social justice goals. I've never seen this. Can you link some examples?
    - chroem- 5y ago
      I invite you to spend lots of time digging through search results, which I myself decline to do since these conversations are rarely productive, however this frequently comes up whenever there's a thread discussing declining white demographics in the US. There is usually someone who says we should stop collecting these statistics altogether because it gives fuel to white nationalists. There are more examples beyond that, but those stick out in my mind because they were so blatant. And while people will surely respond to this post with "Ha, got him! He can't link to a specific example!", I don't believe it's a reasonable expectation of me to catalogue the thousands of comments I read on this website.
      - nl 5y ago
        I'm interested in those threads (I do a lot of work with demographics), but I've never noticed that. Searching for "US demographics collection nationalists" finds one result (your comment above - and presumably soon this one): https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=US%20demographic%20collection%20nationalists&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I tried "US data collection nationalists" but that only found one page of results none of which supported your assertion: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=US%20demographic%20collection%20nationalists&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Do you have a better set of search terms?
        chroem- 5y ago
        HN's search feature leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to comments. Perhaps some variation of "replacement conspiracy theory".
- nightski 5y ago
  I'm surprised to see your comment down-voted. I think that you precisely summarized the problem. Applying population statistics to individuals is problematic. However to expand on that I think it is primarily a problem with point statistics. If a Bayesian philosophy was followed, it's about looking at the plausibility of the entire space and realizing an individual can fall anywhere with a non-zero plausibility (or even in some cases an individual can even fall into an area of 0 plausibility given that it is a model and not reality).
  - biasedbrain 5y ago
    Applying statistics to individuals is not automatically bad. You may be interested if "your group" has inflated risks for certain cancers, for example.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- biasedbrain 5y ago
  but surely you want to make sure every PoC is individually compensated for the systemic racism they had to endure? How is that different? I am not opposed to scrutinizing decision making. But that should happen at the human level, not by scrubbing information from the data or output of algorithms. Some bias is also necessary for survival. When I am walking home at night, I am more likely to change the side of the street when a group of men is approaching me, than when a group of women is approaching me. You can tell me that is discrimination all you want, but I value my life higher than your ideals of political correctness.

mustafa_pasi 5y ago

The point of contention is not whether ugly statistical data should be hidden away. That is a stupid conspiracy theory. Sociologists have no problem publishing all kinds of ugly statistical data. The problems start when for profit entities or governments, start deciding to discriminate against individuals because they belong to certain groups. Statistical data applied to individuals is always going to result in injustice. The thought of the economy at large, or the government reducing an individual to a few datapoints and deciding their fate based on group statistics is just about the scariest communist dystopian nightmare, as far as I am concerned. It robs people of their own humanity.

chroem- 5y ago
You can't just call everything you don't like a conspiracy theory. I have seen plenty of people on HN arguing for censorship of unflattering statistics to achieve social justice goals. Why not just work on fixing the causes of the unflattering statistics in real life, rather than inventing a new framework to make ML models provide less accurate predictions? How do you know these manual override techniques aren't introducing inequity somewhere else in the model? Pareto optimality seems like it should be a very real concern here.
- nl 5y ago
  > I have seen plenty of people on HN arguing for censorship of unflattering statistics to achieve social justice goals. I've never seen this. Can you link some examples?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    I invite you to spend lots of time digging through search results, which I myself decline to do since these conversations are rarely productive, however this frequently comes up whenever there's a thread discussing declining white demographics in the US. There is usually someone who says we should stop collecting these statistics altogether because it gives fuel to white nationalists. There are more examples beyond that, but those stick out in my mind because they were so blatant. And while people will surely respond to this post with "Ha, got him! He can't link to a specific example!", I don't believe it's a reasonable expectation of me to catalogue the thousands of comments I read on this website.
    - nl 5y ago
      I'm interested in those threads (I do a lot of work with demographics), but I've never noticed that. Searching for "US demographics collection nationalists" finds one result (your comment above - and presumably soon this one): https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=US%20demographic%20collection%20nationalists&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... I tried "US data collection nationalists" but that only found one page of results none of which supported your assertion: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=US%20demographic%20collection%20nationalists&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... Do you have a better set of search terms?
      - chroem- 5y ago
        HN's search feature leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to comments. Perhaps some variation of "replacement conspiracy theory".
nightski 5y ago
I'm surprised to see your comment down-voted. I think that you precisely summarized the problem. Applying population statistics to individuals is problematic. However to expand on that I think it is primarily a problem with point statistics. If a Bayesian philosophy was followed, it's about looking at the plausibility of the entire space and realizing an individual can fall anywhere with a non-zero plausibility (or even in some cases an individual can even fall into an area of 0 plausibility given that it is a model and not reality).
- biasedbrain 5y ago
  Applying statistics to individuals is not automatically bad. You may be interested if "your group" has inflated risks for certain cancers, for example.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
biasedbrain 5y ago
but surely you want to make sure every PoC is individually compensated for the systemic racism they had to endure? How is that different? I am not opposed to scrutinizing decision making. But that should happen at the human level, not by scrubbing information from the data or output of algorithms. Some bias is also necessary for survival. When I am walking home at night, I am more likely to change the side of the street when a group of men is approaching me, than when a group of women is approaching me. You can tell me that is discrimination all you want, but I value my life higher than your ideals of political correctness.