cxw

5 ms·

1.
by cxw 6y ago
I'm not talking about ignoring the Twitter thread itself, but rather ignoring the issue it discusses. What I was getting at when I used the word "privilege" is that LeCun is not a member of a group which tends to experience n
2.
by cxw 6y ago
I also work in computer vision (for biological sciences). I use deep convnets every day, and certainly they are increasingly central in biology ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00421 ), proteomics ( https://www.ncb
3.
by cxw 6y ago
Actually, that's Gebru's point. Gebru was pointing out frustration that LeCun was focusing on this narrow question of statistical bias, rather than the broader social issues you're getting at.
4.
by cxw 6y ago
To be fair, LeCun started a discussion around bias in ML -- Gebru's reply is on topic, since statistical bias in ML is a narrow way of understanding the social impact of an algorithm. Gebru is one of the foremost scholars on that issue
5.
by cxw 6y ago
Adding some more sources to show that these scholars are not raising issues without concrete solutions -- Gebru and others have proposed many solutions and more concrete problems than this easily solved question of statistical bias. They ar
6.
by cxw 6y ago
He has the privilege to ignore that discussion. That doesn't mean everyone else does, or that other people can't be frustrated with that choice.
7.
by cxw 6y ago
That's not the problem. To get a sense of it, let me punt to people who know more than me. - https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessm... - https://themarkup.org/locked-out/
8.
by cxw 6y ago
I wanted to write to address your point about the technical assertion, without getting into your request that Gebru empathize with one of the most prominent figures in science. LeCun focused on the narrow technical question of statistical b