Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 140 posts

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#131

Post by bfung »

salvar wrote: post #79
bfung wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Those removed humans have plenty of other opportunities to address their prejudices Where do they have the opportunity to address their prejudices? How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side, or have the other side be able to engage them? With the automation, the semi-forced interaction is gone. Humans are "lazy" by default and those situations won't happen.

> How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side Are you saying that profiling people in stores is literally the only chance people have to talk to "the other side"? How about they use any other available opportunity for human interaction in any other situation in their lives to address their prejudices?

What are other opportunities where people are semi-forced to interact (that don't normally interact with each other)? How do the other opportunities make the profiler no longer profiling when the situation is out of a store?

I am not saying profiling people in stores is the only chance, as the profiling is already a base assumption. I'm saying the automation is taking away more semi-forced interaction point. My premise is that it's bad, as people can only really understand each other when they interact. And most people don't actively interact. The supermarket/shopping place is one place that generally is forced interaction.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#132

Post by gonehome »

deialtrous wrote: post #130
gonehome wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a jump that is a problem. The issue is that the pattern matching reinforces the problem based on race when race is not the cause. There are lots of historical reasons someone could be be a bad credit risk for example, but it isn’t because they’re black or some other race. You want the algorithm to account for cause not correlated patterns that reinforce racial divisions and then perpetuate the inequality.

You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".

That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances.

It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period.

Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference and overfit to patterns in the data. Our learning shares a similar problem to ML.

When you don’t correct for this it hurts people of that race and helps to perpetuate the imbalance - reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#133

Post by salvar »

bfung wrote: post #131
salvar wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How can they understand if they never have the chance to talk to the other side Are you saying that profiling people in stores is literally the only chance people have to talk to "the other side"? How about they use any other available opportunity for human interaction in any other situation in their lives to address their prejudices?

What are other opportunities where people are semi-forced to interact (that don't normally interact with each other)? How do the other opportunities make the profiler no longer profiling when the situation is out of a store? I am not saying profiling people in stores is the only chance, as the profiling is already a base assumption. I'm saying the automation is taking away more semi-forced interaction point. My premi…

Have you considered the cost of the profilee in these cases? What if they don't want to be the subject of a teachable moment for some prejudiced person? Would you tell them that they are wrong?

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#134

Post by nivertech »

Scoundreller wrote: post #32
repsilat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they'd serve everyone else worse That doesn't follow. It could be positive-sum. Just from the checkout (without customer identifiers) they can find correlations. "People who buy salsa tend to buy corn chips. Let's put them near each other in the store." With identifiers they might be able to do more things of that sort. "A few customers shop in two different locations -- over here for fresh produce, but over there…

I want to know what the bibles get stocked next to...

next to guns, ammo, gas masks, canned food, toilet paper ...

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#135

Post by late2part »

kencausey wrote: post #110
late2part wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is terribly sad.

I'll note that like many of the comments on HN and elsewhere that comment on what something is like in the US that the true answer depends on where you are within the US. With the issue it is going to vary tremendously based on which store you are in. I believe in my state at least you also have to leave the store before any law is broken, although such laws are set at the state level and so there may be exceptions.

I think the law is probably reasonable in most cases.

What's terribly sad is that shopkeepers will assume someone is stealing for having their hands in their pocket.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#136

Post by deialtrous »

gonehome wrote: post #132
deialtrous wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".

That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference…

>It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin.

I didn't say it was. I said it was because of race. Skin color is only one of hundreds of measurable objective racial differences. What does it say about your argument that it rests on such a terrible strawman?

>It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn

It is abundantly clear: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png

>Your comments are why it’s a problem

You are simply stating there is a problem with no evidence to support your statement. Blacks commit more crime. The fact that they get arrested more is due to their committing more crime, not due to "racism".

>reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.

There is no evidence to support your belief. Holding black people to the same standard as white people when they are genetically incapable of meeting that standard seems like a much bigger problem, which causes conflict and violence, far larger problems than a completely irrational belief that inequality is somehow unnatural and societally imposed.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#137

Post by zimpenfish »

deialtrous wrote: post #136
gonehome wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference…

>It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. I didn't say it was. I said it was because of race. Skin color is only one of hundreds of measurable objective racial differences. What does it say about your argument that it rests on such a terrible strawman? >It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn It is abundantly clear: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png >Your comments are why it’s a problem You a…

> It is abundantly clear

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf

"Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories."

"Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned."

etc.etc.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#138

Post by deialtrous »

zimpenfish wrote: post #137
deialtrous wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. I didn't say it was. I said it was because of race. Skin color is only one of hundreds of measurable objective racial differences. What does it say about your argument that it rests on such a terrible strawman? >It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn It is abundantly clear: https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1398471221438.png >Your comments are why it’s a problem You a…

> It is abundantly clear https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories." "Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned." etc.etc.

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l...

You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct groups. The fact that this oft repeated myth is so commonly addressed that it is a named fallacy should be an indication that it warrants a little investigation into its accuracy. Here's a handy graph to help visualize how Lewontin's claim is dishonest and false: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03069877090053...

If you want to argue about the science, please research the subject first. There's no way anyone could do even a cursory bit of research and not come across this as it has been beaten to death, resurrected, and re-beaten to death.

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#139

Post by [deleted] »

deialtrous wrote: post #138
zimpenfish wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is abundantly clear https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories." "Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned." etc.etc.

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l... You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct groups. The fact that this oft repeated myth is so commonly addressed that it is a named fallacy should be an indication that it warrants a little investigation into its accuracy. Here's a handy graph to help vis…

[deleted]

Re: In Amazon Go, no one thinks I'm stealing

#140

Post by zimpenfish »

deialtrous wrote: post #138
zimpenfish wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is abundantly clear https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297%2818%2930363-X.pdf "Genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories." "Most human genetic variation is distributed as a gradient, so distinct boundaries between population groups cannot be accurately assigned." etc.etc.

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/l... You can only make that claim by examining a single locus. When you examine multiple loci, human populations are clearly separated into distinct groups. The fact that this oft repeated myth is so commonly addressed that it is a named fallacy should be an indication that it warrants a little investigation into its accuracy. Here's a handy graph to help vis…

I appreciate that it's a Claim To Authority but I'm going to take the collective word of the American Society of Human Genetics in 2018 over an anthropology student's blog post from 2009 without an astonishing amount of evidence to the contrary.
Post reply on HN