21–30 of 173 posts
Don't these kinds of companies have a basic checklist before releasing features like this? And if so, why doesn't this checklist include things like "doesn't identify members of racial group as animals" ? It makes me think that any woke PR coming from Facebook is lip service, if they don't have even basic checks in place.
https://www.credera.com/insights/racial-bias-in-machine-lear...
Don't these kinds of companies have a basic checklist before releasing features like this? And if so, why doesn't this checklist include things like "doesn't identify members of racial group as animals" ? It makes me think that any woke PR coming from Facebook is lip service, if they don't have even basic checks in place.
The space for potential edge cases are so large it will be wack mole. Inference tasks isn’t like software testing where the states are well defined.
It's like launching a rocket ship that you can't test in a physical simulation first. Something is going to go wrong that can't be predicted because we lack the understanding, but this is seen as an acceptable risk.
Aren't we all primates?
Which, by the way, is related to the discussed problem.
The embarrassing thing about these phenomena is that a machine holds up a mirror to us. Naked and ugly.
To 'patch' the mirror won't change a thing. Especially when he is right under the right circumstances. In the right context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space for potential edge cases are so large it will be wack mole. Inference tasks isn’t like software testing where the states are well defined.
A large and complex task is well suited for the talented people behind Facebook. But even a list of basic searches that exercised the engine would have caught this. No excuses imo, particularly since it happened to Google[0] not that long ago. Was nobody paying attention? 0. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-go...
https://www.ecupatria.org/2020/11/24/the-primate-of-church-o...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-go...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, we are, and the author of the NYT article seems weirdly unaware of that. However, the issue here, I’m sure, is that Facebook’s algorithms don’t classify videos of white humans as involving “primates” as well.
We don’t really know that. It’s possible at some point the AI may have been classifying white humans as primates but nobody cares because it’s white humans. You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority.
> You only have a story worth reading when it’s against an underprivileged minority.
To some extent. But I think there would also be a story if some medicine would work badly on white people, or men. The problem here is that these labels would be there for everyone to see and comment on.
If facebook would live by their own rules, they would ban the AI team from using fb accounts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The space for potential edge cases are so large it will be wack mole. Inference tasks isn’t like software testing where the states are well defined.
Another way to put this is: nobody working in this field has control over what they are building, and can't make any promises about how it will behave. It's like launching a rocket ship that you can't test in a physical simulation first. Something is going to go wrong that can't be predicted because we lack the understanding, but this is seen as an acceptable risk.
Don't these kinds of companies have a basic checklist before releasing features like this? And if so, why doesn't this checklist include things like "doesn't identify members of racial group as animals" ? It makes me think that any woke PR coming from Facebook is lip service, if they don't have even basic checks in place.
The space for potential edge cases are so large it will be wack mole. Inference tasks isn’t like software testing where the states are well defined.