3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agono 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 agoThe 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 agosure, but you don't need a manipulated and twisted context please don't take what I say out of context