4 ms·

The quite interesting technical and analytical problem of Deep Learner I suppose, aside. Well, there are medical differences between races. The problem is, un

The quite interesting technical and analytical problem of Deep Learner I suppose, aside. Well, there are medical differences between races. The problem is, unlike some of those between the sexes, they are largely based on social history, not biology. Additionally, these are statistical values that relate to groups of individuals. The question is whether or not automated racial classification improves the treatment of individuals. Another aspect is, a medical diagnosis does not consist of an X-ray alone, but of a conglomeration of assured methodologies and medical experience of the physician. Which raises the question of whether or not, through classification by race, biases of the practitioners are reinforced or not. https://magazine.ucsf.edu/whats-wrong-and-right-race-medicine https://magazine.ucsf.edu/whats-wrong-and-right-race-medicin...

esyir 5y ago
> Well, there are medical differences between races. The problem is, unlike some of those between the sexes, they are largely based on social history, not biology. And once again, this sort of pseudoscience masquerading as science emerges, simply because it fits the American cultural meme that race should not have any inherent impact on outcomes. Hell, the article in the post contradicts that point too Race, as it is right now, is a surrogate variable for a number of genetic factors. It's certainly less precise than some sort of genetic marker analysis, but it's low cost and notable improvement in performance means that it still has a distinct role to play, especially since we're nowhere near post-scarcity. The argument that race is a social construct with no objective source is also not a good counter to this. While true, it also discounts the strong relation between declared race and genetic history. Increasing levels of mixing may reduce this correlation though, requiring a revisit in the future.
- Borrible 5y ago
  Genetic markers correspond to different populations. These populations do not correspond to that what is understood under the term 'race' which is much older and uses phenotypic phenomena. These were largely used to identify exploitable human resources. Funnily enough, ancient societies were not so picky about them and thus probably did not need a classifier to determine them.

esyir 5y ago

> Well, there are medical differences between races. The problem is, unlike some of those between the sexes, they are largely based on social history, not biology. And once again, this sort of pseudoscience masquerading as science emerges, simply because it fits the American cultural meme that race should not have any inherent impact on outcomes. Hell, the article in the post contradicts that point too Race, as it is right now, is a surrogate variable for a number of genetic factors. It's certainly less precise than some sort of genetic marker analysis, but it's low cost and notable improvement in performance means that it still has a distinct role to play, especially since we're nowhere near post-scarcity. The argument that race is a social construct with no objective source is also not a good counter to this. While true, it also discounts the strong relation between declared race and genetic history. Increasing levels of mixing may reduce this correlation though, requiring a revisit in the future.

Borrible 5y ago
Genetic markers correspond to different populations. These populations do not correspond to that what is understood under the term 'race' which is much older and uses phenotypic phenomena. These were largely used to identify exploitable human resources. Funnily enough, ancient societies were not so picky about them and thus probably did not need a classifier to determine them.