4 ms·

Yes, we are, and the author of the NYT article seems weirdly unaware of that. However, the issue here, I’m sure, is that Facebook’s algorithms don’t classify vi

Yes, we are, and the author of the NYT article seems weirdly unaware of that. However, the issue here, I’m sure, is that Facebook’s algorithms don’t classify videos of white humans as involving “primates” as well.

cf100clunk 5y ago
This. The entire point of the article is to highlight what was an unexpected, unanticipated, and most unfortunate AI error. This is a learning experience, pun intended.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  But it isn't an error. Humans are primates.
  - Veen 5y ago
    It is not incorrect by a dictionary definition, but there are other ways of being incorrect. If I identified you at a party by saying "fallingknife is the ape sitting on the sofa" you would probably interpret it differently than if I had said "fallingknife is the person sitting on the sofa". Both are correct, but most people wouldn't interpret them as equally polite or friendly. Members of the set "person" are also members of the superset "ape", but that's irrelevant because the connotations are different, and it's the connotations that are annoying people.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      The offense would be entirely based on the fact that I know you know the correct label, and there is emotional processing behind your word choice, neither of which is true in the case of AI.
xwdv 5y ago
We don’t really know that. It’s possible at some point the AI may have been classifying white humans as primates but nobody cares because it’s white humans. You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority.
- tgv 5y ago
  It's unlikely. Search for images of primate, and you'll see fairly dark, humanoid shapes. Poor training data then seems like a more probable reason for visual confusion. > You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority. To some extent. But I think there would also be a story if some medicine would work badly on white people, or men. The problem here is that these labels would be there for everyone to see and comment on. If facebook would live by their own rules, they would ban the AI team from using fb accounts.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Yeah, white primates are pretty weird. It only happened because a few migrated north into temperate Europe and Asia and lost their melanin a while ago.
    - xwdv 5y ago
      They didn’t lose it. Lighter tones were more popular with potential mates and resulted in gradual whitening over time.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Runaway sexual selection effects generally don't result in beneficial traits; reduced melanin is beneficial in less sunny climates, because cholecalciferol (so-called “Vitamin D₃”, even though it's not a vitamin) synthesis requires sun exposure. And yes, having less of something is correctly called “losing” it in the English language. That was not a correction.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

cf100clunk 5y ago

This. The entire point of the article is to highlight what was an unexpected, unanticipated, and most unfortunate AI error. This is a learning experience, pun intended.

fallingknife 5y ago
But it isn't an error. Humans are primates.
- Veen 5y ago
  It is not incorrect by a dictionary definition, but there are other ways of being incorrect. If I identified you at a party by saying "fallingknife is the ape sitting on the sofa" you would probably interpret it differently than if I had said "fallingknife is the person sitting on the sofa". Both are correct, but most people wouldn't interpret them as equally polite or friendly. Members of the set "person" are also members of the superset "ape", but that's irrelevant because the connotations are different, and it's the connotations that are annoying people.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    The offense would be entirely based on the fact that I know you know the correct label, and there is emotional processing behind your word choice, neither of which is true in the case of AI.

xwdv 5y ago

We don’t really know that. It’s possible at some point the AI may have been classifying white humans as primates but nobody cares because it’s white humans. You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority.

tgv 5y ago
It's unlikely. Search for images of primate, and you'll see fairly dark, humanoid shapes. Poor training data then seems like a more probable reason for visual confusion. > You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority. To some extent. But I think there would also be a story if some medicine would work badly on white people, or men. The problem here is that these labels would be there for everyone to see and comment on. If facebook would live by their own rules, they would ban the AI team from using fb accounts.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Yeah, white primates are pretty weird. It only happened because a few migrated north into temperate Europe and Asia and lost their melanin a while ago.
  - xwdv 5y ago
    They didn’t lose it. Lighter tones were more popular with potential mates and resulted in gradual whitening over time.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Runaway sexual selection effects generally don't result in beneficial traits; reduced melanin is beneficial in less sunny climates, because cholecalciferol (so-called “Vitamin D₃”, even though it's not a vitamin) synthesis requires sun exposure. And yes, having less of something is correctly called “losing” it in the English language. That was not a correction.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]