4 ms·
What is gained from allowing such bias?
by HappyPanacea 11mo ago
What is gained from allowing such bias?
- rvnx 11mo agoSituation: Men are clicking on job of mechanics, more than women. Consequence: men are now more likely shown mechanics job. What is gained: more accurate content, more interesting content, more engagement. As a result: men are more likely to be shown jobs interesting for men, and women are more likely to be shown jobs interesting for women. Which means: Increased chances to find a matching job, and to save time doing so.
- troupo 11mo agoNope. What you eventually get is women not getting a variety of jobs they could apply to and a death of men in professions that actually need more men (e.g. nurses, teachers etc.) We already been through this. It's not ancient history
- fastball 11mo agoYeahhhhhh, those jobs don't have those ratios due to facebook ads.
- rvnx 11mo agoKeep in mind that these advertising algorithms are never 100% pushing jobs catered for a specific group, they keep a % of exploration. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/machine_learning/machine_learning_exploitation_and_exploration.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/machine_learning/machine_lear... This is exploration vs exploitation dilemma. For example let's say that 10% of ads are thrown randomly, and from these random rolls these patterns are discovered: > [Denver+<40-50> years+men]: mechanics +10% > [Denver+<40-50> years+men]: nurse -5% Then the system can apply these coefficients on 90% of the other traffic. If you are making 100% exploration (so 100% random), then it means the people are going to miss their relevant job opportunity (having a net negative impact on the society). Increasing exploration is a solution that would legally actually reduce biases of previouses patterns, but at the cost of less relevant content. In all cases, if the bias is real, exploration discovers them and the coefficients already naturally adjust. One exception, advertisers can artificially restrict saying "I want only men between 30-40" in their targeting filters. Then what Meta can do ? Not much.
- troupo 11mo ago> One exception, advertisers can artificially restrict saying "I want only men between 30-40" in their targeting filters. > Then what Meta can do ? Not much. --- start quote --- “We do not allow advertisers to target these ads based on gender,” Settle said in a 2023 statement. --- end quote --- Meta can start by doing what they claim they are doing?
- rpdillon 11mo agoI think gendered professions are the norm across ancient history. Algorithmic advertising didn't create this.
- troupo 11mo agoChild labor, keeping women uneducated and many other practices were the norm across ancient history. Who are we to question the wisdom of our ancestors.
- rpdillon 11mo agoI'm not using ancient history to justify it. I'm saying it's been around longer than algorithmic advertising. The comment I'm replying to suggested that this was caused by algorithmic advertising, which is a non-sequitur.
- troupo 11mo agoIt didn't even begin to suggest it was caused by algorithmic advertising. What it suggested was people to actually learn something about the world around them. Because we literally have jobs that at one point started as diverse/female dominated and then marketed exclusively at males. For example, IT/programming. Also, a lot of "traditional" roles don't need additional algorithmic biases to stay the same.
- rpdillon 11mo agoA comment asserted that natural evolution of AI algos would result in women getting fewer ads for mechanic jobs, because society has that bias. You responded with: > Nope. What you eventually get is women not getting a variety of jobs they could apply to and a death of men in professions that actually need more men (e.g. nurses, teachers etc.) "What you eventually get" suggests that using algorithms leads to gender discrepancies. I'm saying gender discrepancies existed long prior to the algorithms. I'm not saying gender discrepancies are good (although I do think they are inevitable), I'm just saying they are the cause, rather than the effect, of the algorithm.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- piva00 11mo agoIt also means perpetuating the bias, more men will then apply for the job while maybe some women that could get interested didn't get it shown, reinforcing the already existing issue. Why do we want to perpetuate biases without a chance to allow it to potentially be corrected?
- rvnx 11mo agoOnly if the advertiser restricts the audience to only men or only women or certain age groups. If there are no such restrictions, the algorithms self-balance over time naturally. But advertisers don't want that, because it makes them waste money, so instead they prefer to manually add targeting segments.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago[flagged]
- drnick1 11mo agoAds are built the way they are because they are more effective. This presumably means women would rather be grade school teachers than car mechanics. Second, some "institute" shouldn't be telling a company or anyone really what it can or can't show on its website. The Internet should remain a free place. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it.
- JuniperMesos 11mo agoWhat's to be gained by making it illegal under French law?
- thaumasiotes 11mo agoAdvertising will simultaneously become a lot more expensive and less effective. The ability of job seekers to find jobs they're willing to apply to will go down. Are those not goals of yours?
- tbossanova 11mo agoAds being more expensive and less effective sounds great to me
- flir 11mo ago> Advertising will simultaneously become a lot more expensive and less effective. Oh no! > The ability of job seekers to find jobs they're willing to apply to will go down. The playing field will be level. Who doesn't love a perfectly informed market?
- IshKebab 11mo agoMore efficient advertising. Not worth it in my opinion though.
- potatoproduct 11mo agoI dont think you understand the implications of banning this. In principle you ban any kind of content recommendation. Reddit, Netflix, YouTube, Twitter, etc.
- Timon3 11mo agoNo? Our society doesn't treat jobs as equally important as all kinds of content. Having rules around content recommendation around jobs is easily doable without banning any kind of content recommendation. Or did I miss obvious sarcasm?
- potatoproduct 11mo agoThe content you consume has a large influence in your education and career. If you get recommendations for "Technology" and someone of the opposite sex doesn't its completely discriminatory. If you don't think its a problem then you likely dont understand how recommendation systems work. The only way recommendations could work is you would explicitly state preferences for everything upfront and no engagement data is used.
- Timon3 11mo agoI do understand how recommendation systems work, thank you. You've written twice in this thread that you'd need to ban any kind of content recommendation system. Is that what you're advocating for? Your comments read to me as the opposite - you're saying that the only way to 100% solve this issue is by banning any recommendation system, so we shouldn't do anything instead. This is, of course, not how we treat almost any facet of our society. No law covers 100% of cases, yet we're fine implementing new laws if they improve the situation. Why can't we do the same here?
- unparagoned 11mo agoSaves the employer money advertising. So schools save money. Also more realistically due to fixed budgets a school would get better quality staff. A fixed budget might mean previously the ad would be shown to 10 people interested. But if you are forced to show the ads to a bunch of people not interested you might only have it seen by one person interested.