121–130 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are people really making new accounts on the spot here to comment in these kinds of threads to avoid having disagreeable ideas traced back to their main accounts?
In an age when people doxx you and call your employer to ask them to fire you because you upset their delicate sensibilities, it is somewhat understandable to be paranoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say its impossible. They may happen to align, you cant force it though.
If there exists a scenario where it fails then yes, it is impossible. Just because something works the way you intend it to in some specific case doesn't mean it works in the general case (and the general case is what matters here.)
I agree that its the general case that matters. Impossible is a very strong word though.
How wide do you want to cast the 'general' net? You can still have limited scenarios that are useful. You don't have to model the entire universe.
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.
Perhaps we need a DSM for society level malfunctions, with strict definitions?
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.
Just because a policy seems reasonable and has straightforward justifications for all of its pieces doesn't mean it wasn't maliciously designed to another purpose. The stated intent is not always the only intent and if the results...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thinking of racism in terms of the intent is a way to take the issue less seriously, to force the issue into the realm of opinions and beliefs. If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist. And so on. It's an old tact…
> If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist. Are you saying that this is racism. Most people would define what you outlined as not rascist.
Claiming that racism can be evaluated only by the intent is simply moving the goal posts into an area where we can't clearly observe. It's a tactic.
In terms of this specific issue, algorithms by their very nature lack intent. Thus this particular argument has no validity; we can only judge the algorithm by it's results: the outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's plenty of "systemic" racism/sexism/etc. coming from the left, though. Social engineering in general is a recipe for every kind of unintended consequences at the "systemic/institutional" level, and the left is huge on social engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cults don't write about how to avoid being a cult, while the LW crowd has reams of texts and blog posts about how they are purposefully avoiding trying to become a cult.
Cults do talk quite a bit about why they're not a cult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Racism is discrimination based on race, everything else is not racism.
How does that address the parent commenter’s assertion? Discrimination, whether intended or not, has the same outcome for the discrimated party.
I really wish people would at least skim the wikipedia page to figure out the vocabulary of the field they're about to opine on. The left-progressive use of the word 'bias' is completely different than the way statisticians use the word. If bias increases accuracy/precision, it's not bias. The more interesting question is this - is it permissible for models to consider protected characteristics if those characteristi…
There's lots of words people use that don't match up with exact scientific definition. Infer from context which version applies, or ask, and you'll be fine. Also applies to: force, resistance, acceleration, etc. We know that startup accelerators help companies grow faster and not actually increase their physical velocity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's plenty of "systemic" racism/sexism/etc. coming from the left, though. Social engineering in general is a recipe for every kind of unintended consequences at the "systemic/institutional" level, and the left is huge on social engineering.
I don't know what you mean by social engineering, by the way. I've only heard it in the context of hacking, like calling customer support and pretending to be someone else to try to get their mother's maiden name or whatever.