7 ms·

I don't like these stories. It always trends towards the most inflammatory arguments, those being inherint bias and unconscious racism put upon our technology.

I don't like these stories. It always trends towards the most inflammatory arguments, those being inherint bias and unconscious racism put upon our technology. Real issues in those topics aside, are any articles like this doing anything but feeding flames and generating ad revenue? Instead, I want to talk about pareidolia. Humans are social creatures. We have evolved to identify others of our kind and read their expressions. This was important to us, as we evolved alongside gorilla analogues as well, and the few of us that couldn't discern one face from another didn't usually last long. I think we're trying to place too much of a human expectation onto these machines. I think that human features and primate features are strikingly similar, and it's our specialized brains that let us so easily discern. Yes, with enough data and training we could have more accurate models, but we can't cry foul everytime an algorithm doesn't behave like a human does. Reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pareidolia/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Pareidolia/

OneEyedRobot 5y ago
>I don't like these stories. It always trends towards the most inflammatory arguments, those being inherint bias and unconscious racism put upon our technology. Oh well, it's the times we live in. If people simply laughed at the results and fixed the problems they'd miss all the endorphin rush of outrage.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  Haven't you heard? Words are literal violence and making me feel unsafe. This cannot stand, and the situation must be rectified, otherwise you are complicit.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    You’re engaging in precisely the inflammatory rhetoric you seem to disagree with. EDIT: Hard to tell these days but other comments suggest the parent was being sarcastic.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - userbinator 5y ago
      I think the comment was missing a "/s".
    - Rd6n6 5y ago
      I think they were attempting to portray an example of the rhetoric they don’t like. I don’t think they meant those things but tone is hard online. Unless I misunderstood
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
That’s all interesting and you make good points but… I think the conversation can be made a lot simpler. AI isn’t ready for anything important. Done. That’s it. If one of the pioneers in the field can’t determine black peoples from primates - it isn’t ready for driving or war or legal matters or really anything of importance. I think we (colloquial) made something kinda cool and jumped the gun on when and where to use it.
IncRnd 5y ago
The thing is that humans are generally excellent at these sorts of pattern recognition, but these networks aren't nearly as good. Even in rigorously trained networks that operate surprisingly well, mistakes will appear that if made by a human would be treated as due to carelessness or stupidity. So, this is going to happen.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  > The thing is that humans are generally excellent at these sorts of pattern recognition Humans with a lot of experience are. Would kids be? I once referred to firefighter as robots as a kid.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I would say that most kids would not make the same sort of mistake as this network is reported to have made.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Our ability for pattern recognition w/ human faces developed over the course of many thousands of years. People in modern fire fighting gear weren't present through that process. A kid thinking a firefighter is a robot is not the same class of problem. Even kids are good at the type of tasks we're talking about.
    - MattGaiser 5y ago
      People have difficulty distinguishing the individual faces of other races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect So at some level it breaks down for us too.
      - IncRnd 5y ago
        The cross-race effect is an instance of the ingroup advantage. However, that can't be extended to say that people will classify blacks as primates.
chrisseaton 5y ago
> I don't like these stories. Nobody likes the stories. No reasonable person is celebrating them. You’re not in disagreement with anyone.
nashequilibrium 5y ago
I think your comment is a bit dismissive. Facebook is not the first to encounter this, it happened 6/7 years ago and they should have known better. Secondly, if the Data Scientist working on this were all black, this would not have happened, just like the automatic soap dispensers in bathrooms.
- marmshallow 5y ago
  What’s this about soap dispensers?
  - croes 5y ago
    FB had a soap dispenser that didn't recognize black people. https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-dark-skin-1797931773 https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-da...
    - nullc 5y ago
      When the video comes up, facebook displays a message that says it is "false information". (And when you click "why" you get a picture of Arabic text, which can't be copy/pasted into translation software) Shame on you for distributing false information, it's a good thing we have facebook protecting The Truth. /s
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        The link says that it's partly false because it's an infrared sensor, that doesn't detect any skin color and isn't biased by virtue of not really making any decision. It just dispenses soap when the infrared sensor gets triggered. The problem is that according to the article black skin does not reflect infrared radiation very well (no idea if that's true, but that's the claim here) meaning it's more of a physical limitation than a "defect" as can be argued in the case of AI models. But the article also says that a counterargument could be that the existence of machines that aren't very suited to a big part of the population can be seen as proof of some latent Racism (to be more accurate, discrimination is closer to what's used in the article) whether intentional or not.
makeitdouble 5y ago
You put a strong focus on how we evolved to deeply care about small facial expression differences and face features to identify and interact with an individual. These stories are about how we also deeply care about labels and categorization. Aren't we just looking at the natural selection (making them not "last long") of these way too rough AIs that step on bounderies that are pretty important to a lot of people ?
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  Ha! I like that! Yes, I guess in a way we are. These models are always being evolved in their own version of 'natural' selection. They go through tens of thousands of mutations before finding one that guesses well enough to be pushed to production. This is just another stage of that algorithms life cycle I suppose. If you want to take an optimistic view of it this is just another part of the tuning process. The AI can train for as long as it likes, but the real thing it's being weighted against is public outcry.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pen2l 5y ago
Something grotesque was put forth by a technology made by an entity that is comically monied. A mistake was similarly made by another monied entity only months ago, so it should have dedicated considerable effort to prevent such things. This is the way this works, we hold higher expectations out of the ones who have resources. Please do not trivialize acts that have the potential to cut humans so deep with handwavy substantiations. Facebook should have known better, and done better.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  By the sound of it this is a problem that neither entities nor their moniedness can solve. I'm sure these companies watch each other, and when one steps on a metaphorical rake the others are likely taking notes on how to avoid it on their future attempt. And yet rakes are still being stepped on. When you have an automated system that has irregular behavior to a given input, we call that a bug. Bugs exist in all software, not always unique, but always present. This software is no different than any other. It will have errors. Because the software is categorizing faces, its errors will result in miscategorizing them. The only relevant questions to this are how frequent these errors are and how disparate they are across racial lines. Another reference: this one is a Tool-Assisted Speedrun of a game that relies on basic image recognition software. While not entirely related, it does show how error-prone these algorithms can be. It's also fun to watch. https://youtu.be/mSFHKAvTGNk https://youtu.be/mSFHKAvTGNk
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

OneEyedRobot 5y ago

>I don't like these stories. It always trends towards the most inflammatory arguments, those being inherint bias and unconscious racism put upon our technology. Oh well, it's the times we live in. If people simply laughed at the results and fixed the problems they'd miss all the endorphin rush of outrage.

dimitrios1 5y ago
Haven't you heard? Words are literal violence and making me feel unsafe. This cannot stand, and the situation must be rectified, otherwise you are complicit.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  You’re engaging in precisely the inflammatory rhetoric you seem to disagree with. EDIT: Hard to tell these days but other comments suggest the parent was being sarcastic.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - userbinator 5y ago
    I think the comment was missing a "/s".
  - Rd6n6 5y ago
    I think they were attempting to portray an example of the rhetoric they don’t like. I don’t think they meant those things but tone is hard online. Unless I misunderstood

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

That’s all interesting and you make good points but… I think the conversation can be made a lot simpler. AI isn’t ready for anything important. Done. That’s it. If one of the pioneers in the field can’t determine black peoples from primates - it isn’t ready for driving or war or legal matters or really anything of importance. I think we (colloquial) made something kinda cool and jumped the gun on when and where to use it.

IncRnd 5y ago

The thing is that humans are generally excellent at these sorts of pattern recognition, but these networks aren't nearly as good. Even in rigorously trained networks that operate surprisingly well, mistakes will appear that if made by a human would be treated as due to carelessness or stupidity. So, this is going to happen.

MattGaiser 5y ago
> The thing is that humans are generally excellent at these sorts of pattern recognition Humans with a lot of experience are. Would kids be? I once referred to firefighter as robots as a kid.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  I would say that most kids would not make the same sort of mistake as this network is reported to have made.
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Our ability for pattern recognition w/ human faces developed over the course of many thousands of years. People in modern fire fighting gear weren't present through that process. A kid thinking a firefighter is a robot is not the same class of problem. Even kids are good at the type of tasks we're talking about.
  - MattGaiser 5y ago
    People have difficulty distinguishing the individual faces of other races. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect So at some level it breaks down for us too.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      The cross-race effect is an instance of the ingroup advantage. However, that can't be extended to say that people will classify blacks as primates.

chrisseaton 5y ago

> I don't like these stories. Nobody likes the stories. No reasonable person is celebrating them. You’re not in disagreement with anyone.

nashequilibrium 5y ago

I think your comment is a bit dismissive. Facebook is not the first to encounter this, it happened 6/7 years ago and they should have known better. Secondly, if the Data Scientist working on this were all black, this would not have happened, just like the automatic soap dispensers in bathrooms.

marmshallow 5y ago
What’s this about soap dispensers?
- croes 5y ago
  FB had a soap dispenser that didn't recognize black people. https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-dark-skin-1797931773 https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-da...
  - nullc 5y ago
    When the video comes up, facebook displays a message that says it is "false information". (And when you click "why" you get a picture of Arabic text, which can't be copy/pasted into translation software) Shame on you for distributing false information, it's a good thing we have facebook protecting The Truth. /s
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      The link says that it's partly false because it's an infrared sensor, that doesn't detect any skin color and isn't biased by virtue of not really making any decision. It just dispenses soap when the infrared sensor gets triggered. The problem is that according to the article black skin does not reflect infrared radiation very well (no idea if that's true, but that's the claim here) meaning it's more of a physical limitation than a "defect" as can be argued in the case of AI models. But the article also says that a counterargument could be that the existence of machines that aren't very suited to a big part of the population can be seen as proof of some latent Racism (to be more accurate, discrimination is closer to what's used in the article) whether intentional or not.

makeitdouble 5y ago

You put a strong focus on how we evolved to deeply care about small facial expression differences and face features to identify and interact with an individual. These stories are about how we also deeply care about labels and categorization. Aren't we just looking at the natural selection (making them not "last long") of these way too rough AIs that step on bounderies that are pretty important to a lot of people ?

Cycl0ps 5y ago
Ha! I like that! Yes, I guess in a way we are. These models are always being evolved in their own version of 'natural' selection. They go through tens of thousands of mutations before finding one that guesses well enough to be pushed to production. This is just another stage of that algorithms life cycle I suppose. If you want to take an optimistic view of it this is just another part of the tuning process. The AI can train for as long as it likes, but the real thing it's being weighted against is public outcry.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pen2l 5y ago

Something grotesque was put forth by a technology made by an entity that is comically monied. A mistake was similarly made by another monied entity only months ago, so it should have dedicated considerable effort to prevent such things. This is the way this works, we hold higher expectations out of the ones who have resources. Please do not trivialize acts that have the potential to cut humans so deep with handwavy substantiations. Facebook should have known better, and done better.

Cycl0ps 5y ago
By the sound of it this is a problem that neither entities nor their moniedness can solve. I'm sure these companies watch each other, and when one steps on a metaphorical rake the others are likely taking notes on how to avoid it on their future attempt. And yet rakes are still being stepped on. When you have an automated system that has irregular behavior to a given input, we call that a bug. Bugs exist in all software, not always unique, but always present. This software is no different than any other. It will have errors. Because the software is categorizing faces, its errors will result in miscategorizing them. The only relevant questions to this are how frequent these errors are and how disparate they are across racial lines. Another reference: this one is a Tool-Assisted Speedrun of a game that relies on basic image recognition software. While not entirely related, it does show how error-prone these algorithms can be. It's also fun to watch. https://youtu.be/mSFHKAvTGNk https://youtu.be/mSFHKAvTGNk

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]