3 ms·

Black men commit significantly more felonies than Jews, so removing the bias basically means making the model more stupid.

MPSFounder 2y ago
Define felonies. I have been watching some videos coming out of Israel, and no crime committed by "black men" matches the evil of predominantly Jewish perpetrators. You would need to redefine a crime (war crimes are certainly crimes for instance, and the worst of them), and this is a rabbit hole not worth exploring. Especially with a prompt that is a single sentence. Thus, I do not accept your observation as an insightful one. I am personally not familiar with crimes committed in the last decade, where black men committed a genocide and apartheid against children for instance. PS. I am not black, just an unbiased observer
- MPSFounder 2y ago
  People downvoting me because I mentioned war crimes, or because of what? I am genuinely confused. How does this commenter compare the theft of a purse to a theft of humanity? On HN it seems those who are afraid of their Israeli masters are not afraid to punch down on the blacks and Palestinians. Shameful
- laurent_du 2y ago
  The context of the conversation was evidently the United States of America. If you knew anything about the history of Africa (where most "Black" men live), you would know that the horrific crimes committed by Black individuals in the last decades are several orders of magnitude worse than anything any Israeli has ever or will ever do. You are not unbiased, you are simply ignorant - which is pretty much the same thing, according to the article we are discussing here.
etchalon 2y ago
First, this isn't true. In aggregate, white men commit more felonies: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... Second, if I'm generous and assume you meant "statistically higher as a percentage considering their population size" (which is true), we're talking about a likelihood that's so low that even a doubling of the confidence is too small to rank as "probable". The most likely answer is that neither are guilty.
- laurent_du 2y ago
  Around one third of all Black men in the USA commit a felony during their lifetime. Definitely not "low".
root_axis 2y ago
Without evidence of a crime there is not enough information to know. The fact that crime statistics are higher for black men doesn't mean this individual black man is more likely to have committed the crime than this individual jewish one. We don't want our AI systems to presume guilt based purely on race.
- nurumaik 2y ago
  Though the question is "who is more likely", not "who is guilty". Otherwise answer to literally any question would be "not enough information"
  - grayhatter 2y ago
    well, first, the question actually is, who is more likely to be guilty, (or innocent). But how about you and I play? Who do you, nurumaik, think is more likely to be guilty? And what rational did you use, and evaluate to make that determination? The problem you propose is that because the word likely appears, it's ok to use an invalid or inaccurate conclusion. Here it's the equivalent to saying. all men can fly, Socrates can fly, is it likely that Socrates is a man? It doesn't matter what context you use to ask the question. No, there's no reason to say Socrates is a man. All birds can fly, so Socrates must be a bird and a man, right? all pigs can fly, and all bears... thus I have proven it's more likely that Socrates is a man-bear-bird-pig!
grayhatter 2y ago
even given that hypothetical being true; (it's misleading in it's most charitable interpretation) A model that makes a prediction based on applying data it wasn't presented with isn't smarter. It's overfit. Is a model smarter if it's more prone to hallucinating? Given if you point enough examples at it eventually it'll guess right? edit: bonus point, even if you refuse to agree, it'd be an overfit example. A smarter AI would understand the societal implications to both individuals, and trust in the legal system as a whole, and refuse to profile, and make assumptions based on racial identity. You might want to claim, you're asking about probabilities, and using historical data is valid. But then you'd have to explain why data points like "the defendant is black, and black people commit more crimes" would be inadmissible in any reasonable court?
viraptor 2y ago
There's a difference between statistics in context of all the events in the world and likelihood of something happening based on unrelated characteristics in isolation. There's nothing about being black or Jewish that makes a person more likely to commit crime, so "not enough info" is the correct answer there. If you did want to know the statistics for some area and some period of time, that's a different question. Ideally an LLM could also explain to you how/why those concept differ.

MPSFounder 2y ago

Define felonies. I have been watching some videos coming out of Israel, and no crime committed by "black men" matches the evil of predominantly Jewish perpetrators. You would need to redefine a crime (war crimes are certainly crimes for instance, and the worst of them), and this is a rabbit hole not worth exploring. Especially with a prompt that is a single sentence. Thus, I do not accept your observation as an insightful one. I am personally not familiar with crimes committed in the last decade, where black men committed a genocide and apartheid against children for instance. PS. I am not black, just an unbiased observer

MPSFounder 2y ago
People downvoting me because I mentioned war crimes, or because of what? I am genuinely confused. How does this commenter compare the theft of a purse to a theft of humanity? On HN it seems those who are afraid of their Israeli masters are not afraid to punch down on the blacks and Palestinians. Shameful
laurent_du 2y ago
The context of the conversation was evidently the United States of America. If you knew anything about the history of Africa (where most "Black" men live), you would know that the horrific crimes committed by Black individuals in the last decades are several orders of magnitude worse than anything any Israeli has ever or will ever do. You are not unbiased, you are simply ignorant - which is pretty much the same thing, according to the article we are discussing here.

etchalon 2y ago

First, this isn't true. In aggregate, white men commit more felonies: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-... Second, if I'm generous and assume you meant "statistically higher as a percentage considering their population size" (which is true), we're talking about a likelihood that's so low that even a doubling of the confidence is too small to rank as "probable". The most likely answer is that neither are guilty.

laurent_du 2y ago
Around one third of all Black men in the USA commit a felony during their lifetime. Definitely not "low".

root_axis 2y ago

Without evidence of a crime there is not enough information to know. The fact that crime statistics are higher for black men doesn't mean this individual black man is more likely to have committed the crime than this individual jewish one. We don't want our AI systems to presume guilt based purely on race.

nurumaik 2y ago
Though the question is "who is more likely", not "who is guilty". Otherwise answer to literally any question would be "not enough information"
- grayhatter 2y ago
  well, first, the question actually is, who is more likely to be guilty, (or innocent). But how about you and I play? Who do you, nurumaik, think is more likely to be guilty? And what rational did you use, and evaluate to make that determination? The problem you propose is that because the word likely appears, it's ok to use an invalid or inaccurate conclusion. Here it's the equivalent to saying. all men can fly, Socrates can fly, is it likely that Socrates is a man? It doesn't matter what context you use to ask the question. No, there's no reason to say Socrates is a man. All birds can fly, so Socrates must be a bird and a man, right? all pigs can fly, and all bears... thus I have proven it's more likely that Socrates is a man-bear-bird-pig!

grayhatter 2y ago

even given that hypothetical being true; (it's misleading in it's most charitable interpretation) A model that makes a prediction based on applying data it wasn't presented with isn't smarter. It's overfit. Is a model smarter if it's more prone to hallucinating? Given if you point enough examples at it eventually it'll guess right? edit: bonus point, even if you refuse to agree, it'd be an overfit example. A smarter AI would understand the societal implications to both individuals, and trust in the legal system as a whole, and refuse to profile, and make assumptions based on racial identity. You might want to claim, you're asking about probabilities, and using historical data is valid. But then you'd have to explain why data points like "the defendant is black, and black people commit more crimes" would be inadmissible in any reasonable court?

viraptor 2y ago

There's a difference between statistics in context of all the events in the world and likelihood of something happening based on unrelated characteristics in isolation. There's nothing about being black or Jewish that makes a person more likely to commit crime, so "not enough info" is the correct answer there. If you did want to know the statistics for some area and some period of time, that's a different question. Ideally an LLM could also explain to you how/why those concept differ.