5 ms·

> If you want the model to understand how the word "nurse" is usually used, without regard for what a "nurse" actually is, then associating it with female is fi

> If you want the model to understand how the word "nurse" is usually used, without regard for what a "nurse" actually is, then associating it with female is fine. That’s a distinction without a difference. Meaning is use.

tines 4y ago
Not really; the gender of a nurse is accidental, other properties are essential.
- codethief 4y ago
  While not essential, I wouldn't exactly call the gender "accidental": > We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Source: https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132)
  - daenz 4y ago
    The "Gender Equality Paradox"... there's a fascinating episode[0] about it. It's incredible how unscientific and ideologically-motivated one side comes off in it. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M
  - astrange 4y ago
    If you ask it to generate “nurse” surely the problem isn’t that it’s going to just generate women, it’s that it’s going to give you women in those Halloween sexy nurse costumes. If it did, would you believe that’s a real representative nurse because an image model gave it to you?
- paisawalla 4y ago
  How do you know this? Because you can, in your mind, divide the function of a nurse from the statistical reality of nursing? Are the logical divisions you make in your mind really indicative of anything other than your arbitrary personal preferences?
  - tines 4y ago
    No, because there's at least one male nurse.
    - paisawalla 4y ago
      Please don't waste time with this kind of obtuse response. This fact says nothing about why nursing is a female-dominated career. You claim to know that this is just an accidental fact of history or society -- how do you know that?
      - tines 4y ago
        I meant "accidental" in the Aristotelian sense: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
        paisawalla 4y ago
        Yes I understand that. That is only a description of what mental arithmetic you can do if you define your terms arbitrarily conveniently. "It is possible for a man to provide care" is not the same statement as "it is possible for a sexually dimorphic species in a competitive, capitalistic society (...add more qualifications here) to develop a male-dominated caretaking role" You're just asserting that you could imagine male nurses without creating a logical contradiction, unlike e.g. circles that have corners. That doesn't mean nursing could be a male-dominated industry under current constraints.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  Not really what? How does that contradict what I've said?
mdp2021 4y ago
Very certainly not, since use is individual and thus a function of competence. So, adherence to meaning depends on the user. Conflict resolution? And anyway - contextually -, the representational natures of "use" (instances) and that of "meaning" (definition) are completely different.
- layer8 4y ago
  Humans overwhelmingly learn meaning by use, not by definition.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Humans overwhelmingly learn meaning by use, not by definition Preliminarily and provisionally. Then, they start discussing their concepts - it is the very definition of Intelligence.
    - layer8 4y ago
      Most humans don’t do that for most things they have a notion of in their head. It would be much too time consuming to start discussing the meaning of even just a significant fraction of them. For a rough reference point, the English language has over 150.000 words that you could each discuss the meaning of and try to come up with a definition. Not to speak of the difficulties to make that set of definitions noncircular.
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        (Mental entities are very many more than the hundred thousand, out of composition, cartesianity etc. So-called "protocols" (after logical positivism) are part of them, relating more entities with space and time. Also, by speaking of "circular definitions" you are, like others, confusing mental definitions with formal definitions.) So? Draw your consequences. Following what was said, you are stating that "a staggering large number of people are unintelligent". Well, ok, that was noted. Scolio: if unintelligent, they should refrain from expressing judgement (you are really stating their non-judgement), why all the actual expression? If unintelligent actors, they are liabilities, why this overwhelming employment in the job market? Thing is, as unintelligent as you depict them quantitatively, the internal processing that constitutes intelligence proceeds in many even when scarce, even when choked by some counterproductive bad formation - processing is the natural functioning. And then, the right Paretian side will "do the job" that the vast remainder will not do, and process notions actively (more, "encouragingly" - the process is importantly unconscious, many low-level layers are) and proficiently. And the very Paretian prospect will reveal, there will be a number of shallow takes, largely shared, on some idea, and other intensively more refined takes, more rare, on the same idea. That shows you a distinction between "use" and the asymptotic approximation to meanings as achieved by intellectual application.

tines 4y ago

Not really; the gender of a nurse is accidental, other properties are essential.

codethief 4y ago
While not essential, I wouldn't exactly call the gender "accidental": > We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in. Source: https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132)
- daenz 4y ago
  The "Gender Equality Paradox"... there's a fascinating episode[0] about it. It's incredible how unscientific and ideologically-motivated one side comes off in it. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M
- astrange 4y ago
  If you ask it to generate “nurse” surely the problem isn’t that it’s going to just generate women, it’s that it’s going to give you women in those Halloween sexy nurse costumes. If it did, would you believe that’s a real representative nurse because an image model gave it to you?
paisawalla 4y ago
How do you know this? Because you can, in your mind, divide the function of a nurse from the statistical reality of nursing? Are the logical divisions you make in your mind really indicative of anything other than your arbitrary personal preferences?
- tines 4y ago
  No, because there's at least one male nurse.
  - paisawalla 4y ago
    Please don't waste time with this kind of obtuse response. This fact says nothing about why nursing is a female-dominated career. You claim to know that this is just an accidental fact of history or society -- how do you know that?
    - tines 4y ago
      I meant "accidental" in the Aristotelian sense: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
      - paisawalla 4y ago
        Yes I understand that. That is only a description of what mental arithmetic you can do if you define your terms arbitrarily conveniently. "It is possible for a man to provide care" is not the same statement as "it is possible for a sexually dimorphic species in a competitive, capitalistic society (...add more qualifications here) to develop a male-dominated caretaking role" You're just asserting that you could imagine male nurses without creating a logical contradiction, unlike e.g. circles that have corners. That doesn't mean nursing could be a male-dominated industry under current constraints.
LudwigNagasena 4y ago
Not really what? How does that contradict what I've said?

mdp2021 4y ago

Very certainly not, since use is individual and thus a function of competence. So, adherence to meaning depends on the user. Conflict resolution? And anyway - contextually -, the representational natures of "use" (instances) and that of "meaning" (definition) are completely different.

layer8 4y ago
Humans overwhelmingly learn meaning by use, not by definition.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Humans overwhelmingly learn meaning by use, not by definition Preliminarily and provisionally. Then, they start discussing their concepts - it is the very definition of Intelligence.
  - layer8 4y ago
    Most humans don’t do that for most things they have a notion of in their head. It would be much too time consuming to start discussing the meaning of even just a significant fraction of them. For a rough reference point, the English language has over 150.000 words that you could each discuss the meaning of and try to come up with a definition. Not to speak of the difficulties to make that set of definitions noncircular.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      (Mental entities are very many more than the hundred thousand, out of composition, cartesianity etc. So-called "protocols" (after logical positivism) are part of them, relating more entities with space and time. Also, by speaking of "circular definitions" you are, like others, confusing mental definitions with formal definitions.) So? Draw your consequences. Following what was said, you are stating that "a staggering large number of people are unintelligent". Well, ok, that was noted. Scolio: if unintelligent, they should refrain from expressing judgement (you are really stating their non-judgement), why all the actual expression? If unintelligent actors, they are liabilities, why this overwhelming employment in the job market? Thing is, as unintelligent as you depict them quantitatively, the internal processing that constitutes intelligence proceeds in many even when scarce, even when choked by some counterproductive bad formation - processing is the natural functioning. And then, the right Paretian side will "do the job" that the vast remainder will not do, and process notions actively (more, "encouragingly" - the process is importantly unconscious, many low-level layers are) and proficiently. And the very Paretian prospect will reveal, there will be a number of shallow takes, largely shared, on some idea, and other intensively more refined takes, more rare, on the same idea. That shows you a distinction between "use" and the asymptotic approximation to meanings as achieved by intellectual application.