91–100 of 149 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a person with prosopagnosia (vide http://web.archive.org/web/20080704154655/http://www.prosopa... ), I would love to have personal software for recognizing people. At the same time, I am aware of the dangers of people doing it for commercial purposes (on so many levels!).
check out this: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1070992105/orcam-myme1s...
Does it work? (Any reviews, since it's past its release date?)
There is a lot of sensationalism (see title of article) and high, anxious emotions around facial recognition right now, which really is to be expected at this point. But it is muddying the rational conversations we should be having about it. Can Amazon lessen Rekognition's bias towards white people (ie. bright pixels)? Yes. Get over that. This article completely whiffed on an important point regarding police use of f…
The problem I have with your statement is that it seems to put 'brilliant engineers' on some kind of magical pedestal. Engineers, much like police, are humans. Therefore they hold biases, they can be short-sighted, and they may not understand many of the long-term ramifications of their jobs. All this does is move the power and bias up the chain from police to engineers while simultaneously making some very, very pow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with an "it's racist" strawman is that all the people selling this stuff have to do is frame it so NOT using it is racist. I don't think it would be hard to argue that a face scan is going to have less implicit bias than a poorly trained security guard or bored cop working overtime. So maybe it's racist to not use facial recognition, since that leaves room for human prejudice.
How does software not leave room for human prejudice? Who decides what data is used to feed the thing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem I have with your statement is that it seems to put 'brilliant engineers' on some kind of magical pedestal. Engineers, much like police, are humans. Therefore they hold biases, they can be short-sighted, and they may not understand many of the long-term ramifications of their jobs. All this does is move the power and bias up the chain from police to engineers while simultaneously making some very, very pow…
Your average engineer is far more intelligent and introspective than your average police though. They will have biases, but not the same ones police have and far less racist or sexist ones. Police officers have a rate of domestic violence at 2-4x that of the normal population. We 100% benefit by moving the power up the chain from uneducated people to educated people.
Most cops are college educated?
>They will have biases, but not the same ones police have and far less racist or sexist ones.
I honestly am going to need citations for that statement.
>Your average engineer is far more intelligent and introspective than your average police though.
Again, this is nothing more than a magical belief. There is nothing about the field of engineering that makes the people doing it inherently better than other fields.
I'll say it again, all you do is shift the biases from a publicly accountable (in theory) position to something hidden behind a corporation and unaccountable to the public. This is not a solution, it's just a shell game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
+1 from another trans woman
Pardon the ignorant question, but is there an accepted "standard" for pronouns when someone identifies themself as you did? Which is to say, if you say you're a "trans woman", am I able to infer that your desired gender pronoun is female?
Generally people who prefer neutral pronouns will identify as nonbinary, genderqueer, or perhaps transmasculine or transfeminine, (although not all people who so identify prefer neutral pronouns) and you might need to ask them for their preference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, I see your Down Syndrome point, and raise you Autism/Asperger Syndrome. Alright, there isn't currently a test that would enable people with Autism/Asperger Syndrome to be systematically aborted, but it isn't so hard to imagine a future where it would be possible. Given the high proportion of people in this forum with these conditions, how do we feel about this?
Please note that you're not aborting 'people' ... just a thing that might become a person. You're giving (actual) people the opportunity to choose to have healthier families. - Note that I say 'healthier families' specifically because willfully passing on genetic features that disadvantage your children burdens not just them but your entire family unit.
While I personally am not entirely sure how I feel about this sort of eugenics, it's worth noting that at the gestational period these genetic anomalies are detected it's far more likely that these fetuses would progress to develop legal personhood than not.
Given our species history of reliance on anomalous individuals I suspect it's unwise to seek further genetic homogenization and better for us to learn to accept those who don't neatly fit societal norms of fitness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect the integration and matter of time exist in recent history. The question I struggle with is, what ought a neutral-good aligned individual do about it?
I think neutral good as an alignment inherently comes with a disadvantage in making impact. You have to take certain levels of risks at certain extremes to be able to influence anything .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with an "it's racist" strawman is that all the people selling this stuff have to do is frame it so NOT using it is racist. I don't think it would be hard to argue that a face scan is going to have less implicit bias than a poorly trained security guard or bored cop working overtime. So maybe it's racist to not use facial recognition, since that leaves room for human prejudice.
How does software not leave room for human prejudice? Who decides what data is used to feed the thing?