8 ms·

Didn't see the comments yesterday where HN achieved consensus that racist AI might be real but isn't that bad if it is?

yyyk 3y ago
Our hypothetical AI won't make any decisions. It just makes sketches as described and approved by witnesses. The relevant racism here is the one any witnesses may have, that's true even with a human police sketch artist.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  "as described" according to what? There is simply no way to create image from words without something closely resembling decisions. Maybe "it" won't "make" those decisions, but they will be made somewhere.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    Yea, somebody will have to evaluate whether the image matches the word, and that is currently done by the witnesses themselves. How is it worse than the current state?
  - st00 3y ago
    Since you opened with passive-aggressive hints of racism, it's possible that you're not following the thread, or actually reading the replies. Please draw your attention to the discussion about the witness in the process of image generation. For example: Officer: "Could you describe the man who attacked you, miss." Witness: "Well, he had ...eyes, a ... forehead, and ..." <here's the impotent part for you, _lady> Officer grabs the first rendering from the machine and shows it to the witness: "Did he look like this?" Witness: "No, his eyes were set further apart." Whir, whir, the machine prints another image. Officer: "More like this, then?" And so on... In the scenario I described, I'm not sure where a new source of racism is introduced. Help me see this differently.
Gordonjcp 3y ago
Not really sure you can say AI is "racist". It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense. It's just Eliza with a really, *really* big array of canned responses to interpolate between.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  It's just Eliza with a really, really* big array of canned responses to interpolate between.* So, just like people, then.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  In the racism-as-individual-intentional-malice framework sure. But I'm a consequentialist on this one. If it causes disparate & unjust outcomes mediated by perceived race then describing it as racist makes sense. No intent necessary.
- digging 3y ago
  > Not really sure you can say AI is "racist". > It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense. Honest question, what is the purpose of this comment? What is the change you want to see coming out of this semantic argument?
  - Gordonjcp 3y ago
    Ideally, people will stop ascribing thought and intent to a clever IVR script.
- cthalupa 3y ago
  No one is arguing that the AI has some sort of intentional racism and inherent real intelligence - they aren't trying to anthropomorphize it. The argument is that the output is racially discriminatory for a variety of reasons and it's easier to just say "it's racist" than "Many of the datasets that AI is trained on under- or over-represent many ethnic groups" and then dive into the details there.

yyyk 3y ago

Our hypothetical AI won't make any decisions. It just makes sketches as described and approved by witnesses. The relevant racism here is the one any witnesses may have, that's true even with a human police sketch artist.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
"as described" according to what? There is simply no way to create image from words without something closely resembling decisions. Maybe "it" won't "make" those decisions, but they will be made somewhere.
- yyyk 3y ago
  Yea, somebody will have to evaluate whether the image matches the word, and that is currently done by the witnesses themselves. How is it worse than the current state?
- st00 3y ago
  Since you opened with passive-aggressive hints of racism, it's possible that you're not following the thread, or actually reading the replies. Please draw your attention to the discussion about the witness in the process of image generation. For example: Officer: "Could you describe the man who attacked you, miss." Witness: "Well, he had ...eyes, a ... forehead, and ..." <here's the impotent part for you, _lady> Officer grabs the first rendering from the machine and shows it to the witness: "Did he look like this?" Witness: "No, his eyes were set further apart." Whir, whir, the machine prints another image. Officer: "More like this, then?" And so on... In the scenario I described, I'm not sure where a new source of racism is introduced. Help me see this differently.

Gordonjcp 3y ago

Not really sure you can say AI is "racist". It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense. It's just Eliza with a really, *really* big array of canned responses to interpolate between.

CamperBob2 3y ago
It's just Eliza with a really, really* big array of canned responses to interpolate between.* So, just like people, then.
giraffe_lady 3y ago
In the racism-as-individual-intentional-malice framework sure. But I'm a consequentialist on this one. If it causes disparate & unjust outcomes mediated by perceived race then describing it as racist makes sense. No intent necessary.
digging 3y ago
> Not really sure you can say AI is "racist". > It can't think, or form opinions. It's not "intelligent" in any real sense. Honest question, what is the purpose of this comment? What is the change you want to see coming out of this semantic argument?
- Gordonjcp 3y ago
  Ideally, people will stop ascribing thought and intent to a clever IVR script.
cthalupa 3y ago
No one is arguing that the AI has some sort of intentional racism and inherent real intelligence - they aren't trying to anthropomorphize it. The argument is that the output is racially discriminatory for a variety of reasons and it's easier to just say "it's racist" than "Many of the datasets that AI is trained on under- or over-represent many ethnic groups" and then dive into the details there.