xepriot

5 ms·

1.
by xepriot 3y ago
I disagree. You just have to be committed to doing the right thing. If some ideological complex or other is opposed to this, you can compassionately tell people the truth, writing under the assumption - which you may emphasise as much as yo
2.
by xepriot 3y ago
This is certainly charitable to Noah Smith, but I think it's more likely he earnestly has the overcomplicated understanding of racism he appears to demonstrate in his article. And it does have the same effect as if he did: he advances
3.
by xepriot 3y ago
We'll see what comes out later, but I give it 90:10 odds that this behavior was seen in testing and accepted by developers/DEI commissars - the failure was in not forseeing the reaction of the non-DEI-extremist public. Of a piece
4.
by xepriot 3y ago
Did the developers intend their product to manipulate race in its outputs or not? It's a simpler question than these contorted reformulations you present. But probably not simple enough to pierce ideological bias. I'll ask instead
5.
by xepriot 3y ago
No, when unintentioned outcomes occur in the world, this is not racism. The sun is not racist for burning white skin more severely than dark skin, and when AI are trained on disproportionately white data, their outputs are not racism. When
6.
by xepriot 3y ago
What in the world is going on with these convoluted framings? Just call it racism - not a 'shortcut' or an 'overcorrection'. Why not just clearly, simply, and precisely describe what is going on? This is anti-white racis
7.
by xepriot 3y ago
This is dishonest. what is the point of this comment? Do you feel righteously woke when you write it? He was pushing back against a communist narrative that: every single demographic gruop should be equally represented in every part of tech
8.
by xepriot 3y ago
The contention is close, but not exactly that - it would be that when MM said 'Yaccarino was wrong, here's proof', this was defamatory because 'protected' was never meant to imply 100% perfect protection, and theref
9.
by xepriot 3y ago
Not in the article that article (written by the defendants) - the lawsuit, following the example of others, explains how they poked and prodded in very unnatural ways, trying to contrive a circumstance in which ads would be shown next to ce
10.
by xepriot 3y ago
It seems to me that defamation here hinges on exactly what Media Matters said their little experiment shows about X: if they indicated that they were capturing the horrific state of the general user experience with respect to ads and offens
11.
by xepriot 3y ago
you demonstrate the slave mindset. you cannot imagine and so reject the possibility of an individual with the charismatic power to make those below him not feel like insects yet at the same time not neuroticise or even consciously attend at
12.
by xepriot 3y ago
You have to (nonverbally; perhaps with your whole personality) get them to understand and agree that it is good for them to take out the trash, and to trust your intentions, and that your leadership generally is also good and worthy of trus
13.
by xepriot 3y ago
Neuroticising over how to word your commands (polite requests) is slave mindset, and such a person who does this is not a 'leader'. What makes a leader is not how you word things. But almost nobody walking around in corporate amer
14.
by xepriot 3y ago
Why do you perform this “well, they have a reason to be upset” ritualistic apologia before you condemn racist murder and the rhetoric that provokes it?