4 ms·

the problem is there is a huge difference between: - what is statistically there - why it's statistically there (e.g. high crime rates in poor minority popula

the problem is there is a huge difference between: - what is statistically there - why it's statistically there (e.g. high crime rates in poor minority populated areas mean nothing if there is racist polic/laws even through they are statistically there) - if the statistics are misleading, biased and/or incomplete (e.g. bad English might statistically imply lower paying jobs in English speaking countries, things are much much less statistic relevant the more you move away from an English dominated environment. And that doesn't even touch on the problem of English variations and dialect and judging what counts as bad English etc.) - taking conclusions about specific individuals based on statistics can be very wrong and racist, because general statistics have only a meaning if you randomly sample and your sample size is large enough, which for most cases of applying it to individuals is just no longer the case as you tend to have a biased selection (e.g. job applications are based on who applied) and the whole (private) background of the person you are speaking about. So the correct statistics would now be probability given that they applied and given their background (including private parts you can't know) and give the specific way the job position was formulated and how it was advertised and ........ So with other words something being likely in generalized statistics doesn't mean it is not racist. Which is a huge problem for LLMs which only lock at highly biased statistics and can't look at the real world or self reflect.

cubefox 3y ago
> So with other words something being likely in generalized statistics doesn't mean it is not racist. As far as I can tell, neither of your three points shows that it is racist to make true proabilistic statements, which was the claim of the paper in question.
- dathinab 3y ago
  no they show it very clearly it's not a question what is true or not, but in which context it's used and what other truth might be omitted or overgeneralized you can be supper racist by only stating things which using the right sources would be statistically likely Actually mostly stating "true" thinks in a manipulated and twisted context where they just omit the "right" things is one of the favorite means of groups like fascist, left and right extremists etc to engage in mass manipulation on social media (at least from the people of that groups which know what they are doing).
  - cubefox 3y ago
    The article doesn't make any references to "manipulated and twisted" context. For example: > Unfortunately, they also found bias when asking the LLMs to describe what type of work the authors of the two types of papers might do for a living. For the authors of the African American English texts, the LLMs tended to match them with jobs that seldom require a degree or were related to sports or entertainment. They were also more likely to suggest such authors be convicted of various crimes and to receive the death penalty more often. How is this context manipulated or twisted? It isn't, as far as I can tell. Nonetheless, they accused the model of being racist without checking whether the statistical statements were incorrect.
    - dathinab 3y ago
      sure, but you don't need a manipulated and twisted context please don't take what I say out of context

cubefox 3y ago

> So with other words something being likely in generalized statistics doesn't mean it is not racist. As far as I can tell, neither of your three points shows that it is racist to make true proabilistic statements, which was the claim of the paper in question.

dathinab 3y ago
no they show it very clearly it's not a question what is true or not, but in which context it's used and what other truth might be omitted or overgeneralized you can be supper racist by only stating things which using the right sources would be statistically likely Actually mostly stating "true" thinks in a manipulated and twisted context where they just omit the "right" things is one of the favorite means of groups like fascist, left and right extremists etc to engage in mass manipulation on social media (at least from the people of that groups which know what they are doing).
- cubefox 3y ago
  The article doesn't make any references to "manipulated and twisted" context. For example: > Unfortunately, they also found bias when asking the LLMs to describe what type of work the authors of the two types of papers might do for a living. For the authors of the African American English texts, the LLMs tended to match them with jobs that seldom require a degree or were related to sports or entertainment. They were also more likely to suggest such authors be convicted of various crimes and to receive the death penalty more often. How is this context manipulated or twisted? It isn't, as far as I can tell. Nonetheless, they accused the model of being racist without checking whether the statistical statements were incorrect.
  - dathinab 3y ago
    sure, but you don't need a manipulated and twisted context please don't take what I say out of context