Live data from Hacker News

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

breakermag.com

61–70 of 388 posts

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#61

The second half of the article that talks about Yudkowsky, rationalists, and Roko's Basilisk is absolute trash and a gross mischaracterization of the actual positions taken. >Yudkowski has for more than a decade pursued the possibility of perfect human reasoning His website is literally called "Less Wrong". It's fundamentally a quest for improvement , not perfection. >His system of coldly logical reason, it turned ou…

> "This is because of the regretful (but understandable) decision to censor discussion of it on Less Wrong, which backfired spectacularly." Can you explain the (understandable) rationale behind Less Wrong censoring discussion of Roko's Basilisk? I've been lead to believe it was censored out of fear that discussing it could somehow inspire its actual creation. Honestly from a distance Less Wrong has always struck me a…

The entry on the less wrong wiki has some info on it:

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you have to be sure the groups you are equalizing across are fair and valid and comprehensive groups.

I've been advocating for the rights of my own group "left handed 1/64 cherokee Americans with hazel eyes and slighly wavy brown hair" forever and I've been STUNNED at how quick people are to ignore the systemic bias against us. Some other categories of people seem to be doing much better than us, which is only explainable from systemic bias. Unless we are down with being complicit in a "right handed non partially che…

What are you trying to accomplish here?

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#63

Disparities in racial outcomes do not necessarily constitute racism. The author flippantly violates this by claiming the credit system to be racist, but the Equal Credit Opportunity Act has been in force since 1974. We know the factors that affect credit, some of them are income, payment history, loan balances, number of credit checks, etc.

> The author flippantly violates this by claiming the credit system to be racist, but the Equal Credit Opportunity Act has been in force since 1974. Surely you're not arguing that the law instantly solved everything? Countrywide - once the lender for 20% of mortgages - was dinged for violating the ECOA in 2011, so violations were clearly still occurring then, and are likely continuing today. Add in the fact that redl…

I think a lot of people (especially on HN) view racism in terms of internal processes rather than results. If the current implementation is race-blind, that satisfies them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/comments/8wz6g3/impartial_a...

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#64

It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same. The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent. We need better words.

> It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same.

This is quite true. But then, there is considerable diversity in that issue within each the right and the left, too.

> The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent.

But this is not even approximately true. Though it is an oft-repeated talking point of the right.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#65
post #11

There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair. I'm going to repeat this again, since many people struggle with this. It is _literally impossible_ to achieve the best utilitarian outcome, the most procedurally fair outcome, and a representatively fair outcome. Anyone designing algorithms will have to make tradeoffs along this frontier. For a far better ar…

> There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair.

AI is just tools of humans. Any system that can be achieved with humans can also be achieved with AI.

These AIs take us backwards from our existing human systems in addition to being much harder to correct later.

The supermarket theft example in the slides you linked to is a prime example. In what store in America would that kind of display be deemed acceptable? Yeah, you save a few dollars a day on theft, but what kind of goodwill are you spending? Now that AI is here, people think they can get away with things like that because numbers.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#66

It just dawned on me that the left and right absolutely do not think of “racist” exactly the same. The left looks at outcome and the right looks at intent. We need better words.

Those words are "systemic" or "implicit" or "institutional", etc. All you really need is a proof or example that racist/sexist outcomes are possible even when there is no overt intent. And there are plenty of examples like that out there. Failure to accept that those examples exist, however, is something beyond just looking at intent instead of outcome.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why's that?

“I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct, than about being morally right”

But she's right. Alot of people will spend hours arguing over semantics that in the grand scheme of the debate don't actually affect the outcome, largely because people have become so uncharitable in their characterisations of 'the other side'.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#68
post #11

There is no design of AI that can be simultaneously utilitarian, procedurally fair, and representatively fair. I'm going to repeat this again, since many people struggle with this. It is _literally impossible_ to achieve the best utilitarian outcome, the most procedurally fair outcome, and a representatively fair outcome. Anyone designing algorithms will have to make tradeoffs along this frontier. For a far better ar…

[deleted]

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#69

It’s more clear to me than ever now that the left and the right do not use the word “racist” the same way. The left thinks of racism in terms of outcome and the right thinks of racism in terms of intent. We could benefit from better language around these concepts, and honest dialogue about them too.

and academics think of it as power imbalance of any majority power, separate from the census majority and minorities

and colloquially nobody thinks of it the same way, with themselves always exempt from being racist until convinced that their 'normal behavior' is considered racist and this does not change their view of their normal behavior 'so be it'

this is a challenge. at this point the word itself is polluted.

Re: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Absolutely Right About Racist Algorithms

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I think that there’s a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct, than about being morally right”

But she's right. Alot of people will spend hours arguing over semantics that in the grand scheme of the debate don't actually affect the outcome, largely because people have become so uncharitable in their characterisations of 'the other side'.

The previous discussion prior to this quote was about how she was going to fund her estimated 40 trillion dollars of policy (over ten years), and how her purposed tax hike would only cover roughly two trillion. The facts really do matter in that case. She disagrees.

TAPPER: “Your platform has called for various new programs including Medicare for all, housing as a federal right, federal jobs guaranteed, tuition free public college, canceling all student loan debt. According to nonpartisan and Left leaning studies friendly to your cause, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or the Tax Policy Center, the overall price tag is more than $40 trillion in the next decade. You recently said in an interview increasing taxes on the very wealthy, plus an increased corporate tax rate would make $2 trillion over the next ten years. Where is the other $38 trillion going to come from?”

OCASIO-CORTEZ: “One of the things we need to realize when we look at something like Medicare for all, Medicare for all would save the American people a very large amount of money. What we see as well is that these systems are not just pie in the sky. Many of them are accomplished by every modern civilized democracy in the western world. The United Kingdom has a form of single payer health care, Canada, France, Germany. We need to realize that these investments are better and they are good for our future. These are generational investments so that they are not short-term Band-Aids but they are really profound decisions about who we want to be as a nation and how we want to act as the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.”

TAPPER: “Right. I get that. But the price tag for everything that you laid out in your campaign is $40 trillion over the next 10 years. I understand that Medicare for all would cost more to some wealthier people and to the government and to taxpayers, while also reducing individual health care expenditures. But I am talking about the overall package. You say it’s not pie in the sky but $40 trillion is quite a bit of money. And the taxes that you talked about raising to pay for this, to pay for your agenda, only count for two [trillion dollars]. We’re going by left-leaning analysts.”

OCASIO-CORTEZ: “Right. When you look again at how our health care works, currently we pay — much of these costs go into the private sector. So, what we see, for example, is, you know, a year ago I was working downtown in a restaurant. I went around and I asked how many of you folks have health insurance? Not a single person did. They’re paying — they would have had to pay $200 a month for a payment for insurance that had an $8,000 deductible. What these represent are lower cost overall for these programs. Additionally, what this is, it’s a broader agenda. We do know and acknowledge that there are political realities. They don’t always happen with just a wave of a wand but we can work to make these things happen. In fact, when you look at the economic activity that it spurs — for example, if you look at my generation, millennials, the amount of economic activity that we do not engage in. The fact that we delay purchasing homes, that we don’t participate in the economy as purchasing cars as fully as fully as possible is a cost. It is an externality, if you will, of unprecedented amount of student loan debt.”

TAPPER: “I am assuming I won’t get an answer for the other $38 trillion. We’ll have you back and go over that.”

Post reply on HN