3 ms·

What do you think the skin tone of the people that came up with the AI is? Can you say with a straight face that this has 0 influence on how they initially cali

by rmxt 11y ago

What do you think the skin tone of the people that came up with the AI is? Can you say with a straight face that this has 0 influence on how they initially calibrated the models? I would imagine that they tried their best to have the algorithm learn equally well across all skin tones...but my impression is that as a gut reaction, people generally envision an unknown person as someone of their own race. Even though the association between blackness and great apes is a longstanding racist trope, I don't think anyone should be suing anyone over something like this. Instead of getting on your soap box though, you could at least acknowledge that there are increasingly meaningful decisions being made by algorithms that may or may not be monitored by human discretion. What happens when someone does actually get physically hurt, or experiences financial misfortune, due to shoddy programming? That's what the article is getting at -- you merely fell for the clickbait. Nobody has the right to not be offended... but certain relationships between users and companies can engender certain obligations and duties between one or the other. That's the point of this article, and image connotations that stir up bad feelings are merely the latest topic to bring the subject to light. P.S.: What exactly is "bullshit" about people expressing their dismay about associating blackness with monkeys? Just like people don't have a right to "not be offended," those same people have a right to voice their displeasure at the company and people that promote these shitty images. The fact that you're trying to silence their response makes you no better than those that wish to sue Google for something like this.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"What do you think the skin tone of the people that came up with the AI is? Can you say with a straight face that this has 0 influence on how they initially calibrated the models?" Are you really being serious right now? You can't really see how AI could make the mistake that it made? "What happens when someone does actually get physically hurt, or experiences financial misfortune, due to shoddy programming?" This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Companies already experience financial misfortune from AI through mistakes made through algorithmic trading. Why are we going as far as AI? It's not here yet. What about when people spread lies online and it ruins a career or when sites like Wikileaks spreads undercover operative positions and someone gets killed by a foreign government?? There are no consequences. "those same people have a right to voice their displeasure at the company and people that promote these shitty images. The fact that you're trying to silence their response makes you no better than those that wish to sue Google for something like this" It only goes one way, however. This is the problem. For example, people have been fired for expressing their dislike of gay marriage on Facebook (which I don't consider homophobia). However, I don't see anyone getting fired for spreading their dislike of religions or religious people (another protected class) which I see plastered all over social media. There are countless examples of this and it's making our society a pretty scary place. This should be the real discussion here: Why are some people free to bully, torment, and slander another class of people with virtually no repercussions?
- rmxt 11y ago
  I can most definitely see how the AI made the mistake. My point is that it might be possible that the human creators of those programs might have had an unwitting role that lead to that mistake. What is "slanderous" about stating the truth regarding someone's opinion? People are free to criticize those who oppose gay marriage... no one is free from public backlash to backwards opinions.
  - paulhauggis 11y ago
    "People are free to criticize those who oppose gay marriage" Everyone should have the freedom to their opinion. However, if I say I don't like gay marriage..I have a really good possibility of getting fired from my job and being called "homophobic". I've even heard that even stating this opinion is a form of discrimination. Let's be clear here, I'm not talking about bullying people that are gay or attacking them personally. Along those same lines, I've seen horrible things being said about anyone religious. Horrible and bigoted shit. Yet, there is no outcry. Nobody is getting fired for essentially doing the same thing to another group of human beings.
    - rmxt 11y ago
      Saying you "don't like gay marriage" is a bit like someone in 1950s America saying they "don't like interracial marriage." I don't think that someone should get fired from their job for believing that (because I wouldn't wish that on many people), but it seems that it would be hard for someone to reconcile those beliefs with fair and positive treatment of all people in their work-world. How can you feel that someone shouldn't be entitled to get civilly married while still fully respecting them as a person? Do you have any stories or links for things about people saying "horrible and bigoted shit" about Christians or some other majority religion and then not getting ridiculed/lambasted by some other portion of the population, or not being criminally charged? Wherever I see atheist billboard controversy, I see Christian backlash. Whenever I see Christian billboard controversy, I see agostic/atheist backlash. My general perception is that this is how free speech is supposed to work. Free speech that infringes (or encourages infringement of) on the rights of others to peaceably live their lives with dignity(i.e., for a gay couple to get married) is where I imagine the line between harassment and free speech occurs. This is a critical difference: as demonstrated by recent events (Charleston, etc.), there are terrible people that will take the "bigoted shit" to an extreme and cause physical harm. However, I've never seen an instance of American on American crime where "bigoted shit" led to material harm against a Christian, without the wheels of justice being spun full blast in pursuit. The same cannot be said for historically discriminated populations, e.g. gay people until this generation, black people until maybe the generation before that, and Irish and Italians in the 19th century, for example. Apologizing for a picture that has "gorilla" next to a black person's face isn't about persecution, or gay people, or about any other class of people (as you've somehow made this conversation about); it's about realizing that people in the past were shitty, and we can do better than that.

by rmxt 11y ago

paulhauggis 11y ago

"What do you think the skin tone of the people that came up with the AI is? Can you say with a straight face that this has 0 influence on how they initially calibrated the models?" Are you really being serious right now? You can't really see how AI could make the mistake that it made? "What happens when someone does actually get physically hurt, or experiences financial misfortune, due to shoddy programming?" This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Companies already experience financial misfortune from AI through mistakes made through algorithmic trading. Why are we going as far as AI? It's not here yet. What about when people spread lies online and it ruins a career or when sites like Wikileaks spreads undercover operative positions and someone gets killed by a foreign government?? There are no consequences. "those same people have a right to voice their displeasure at the company and people that promote these shitty images. The fact that you're trying to silence their response makes you no better than those that wish to sue Google for something like this" It only goes one way, however. This is the problem. For example, people have been fired for expressing their dislike of gay marriage on Facebook (which I don't consider homophobia). However, I don't see anyone getting fired for spreading their dislike of religions or religious people (another protected class) which I see plastered all over social media. There are countless examples of this and it's making our society a pretty scary place. This should be the real discussion here: Why are some people free to bully, torment, and slander another class of people with virtually no repercussions?

rmxt 11y ago
I can most definitely see how the AI made the mistake. My point is that it might be possible that the human creators of those programs might have had an unwitting role that lead to that mistake. What is "slanderous" about stating the truth regarding someone's opinion? People are free to criticize those who oppose gay marriage... no one is free from public backlash to backwards opinions.
- paulhauggis 11y ago
  "People are free to criticize those who oppose gay marriage" Everyone should have the freedom to their opinion. However, if I say I don't like gay marriage..I have a really good possibility of getting fired from my job and being called "homophobic". I've even heard that even stating this opinion is a form of discrimination. Let's be clear here, I'm not talking about bullying people that are gay or attacking them personally. Along those same lines, I've seen horrible things being said about anyone religious. Horrible and bigoted shit. Yet, there is no outcry. Nobody is getting fired for essentially doing the same thing to another group of human beings.
  - rmxt 11y ago
    Saying you "don't like gay marriage" is a bit like someone in 1950s America saying they "don't like interracial marriage." I don't think that someone should get fired from their job for believing that (because I wouldn't wish that on many people), but it seems that it would be hard for someone to reconcile those beliefs with fair and positive treatment of all people in their work-world. How can you feel that someone shouldn't be entitled to get civilly married while still fully respecting them as a person? Do you have any stories or links for things about people saying "horrible and bigoted shit" about Christians or some other majority religion and then not getting ridiculed/lambasted by some other portion of the population, or not being criminally charged? Wherever I see atheist billboard controversy, I see Christian backlash. Whenever I see Christian billboard controversy, I see agostic/atheist backlash. My general perception is that this is how free speech is supposed to work. Free speech that infringes (or encourages infringement of) on the rights of others to peaceably live their lives with dignity(i.e., for a gay couple to get married) is where I imagine the line between harassment and free speech occurs. This is a critical difference: as demonstrated by recent events (Charleston, etc.), there are terrible people that will take the "bigoted shit" to an extreme and cause physical harm. However, I've never seen an instance of American on American crime where "bigoted shit" led to material harm against a Christian, without the wheels of justice being spun full blast in pursuit. The same cannot be said for historically discriminated populations, e.g. gay people until this generation, black people until maybe the generation before that, and Irish and Italians in the 19th century, for example. Apologizing for a picture that has "gorilla" next to a black person's face isn't about persecution, or gay people, or about any other class of people (as you've somehow made this conversation about); it's about realizing that people in the past were shitty, and we can do better than that.