Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with the taller/shorter, you would commonly have two tallers producing a shorter, or two shorters producing a taller. If we were talking about husbandry, we would say that tallers and shorters don't "breed true". But with race, you never have two white people produce a black person, or vice versa (and no, a black person with albinism is not a white person).
"never" is too strong here. Two black people occasionally produce a white baby without albinism. There's a lot of genes that code skin color and you can have a bunch of recessive "white skin" genes and still be very black-skinned yourself. Then sometimes your child gets all the recessive white-skin genes from both parents. I had a personal friend who was white with two black parents, not albino, and genetic tests pro…
AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
251–260 of 357 posts
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#252There's only one race. Ethnicity may vary.
ethnicity = race race = something_else() You're just redefining words, we are all still talking about the same concepts. This is unhelpful pedantry.
First, ethnicity (1) is very much not race (2). Second, and I assumed (wrongly, apparently) that a reader might follow this discussion to a logical end, which is to question why determining race using AI or any other means is even neccessary or remarkable. The article briefly knocks on that door in the last section (titled "so what"), but has nothing on offer.
If I'm simply redefining words then I'm marginalising years of racism. Mandela, MLK and many many more must similarly be pedants, no?
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is the definition I’ve always heard It's not as precise as you think, because fertility isn't transitive. Consider members of a species, M1, M2, F1, F2. M1 might be fertile with F1, M2 with F2, but M1 may not be fertile with F2. Are they all really members of the same species? Read up on the species problem for more information (there are now 26, not 24): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
I can’t admit I have any qualifications to speak about biology, and I know HN is known for proposing reductive “solutions” based on oversimplified models of reality. That being said, it seems to me that it makes sense that a species would include the entire connected graph whose nodes are members and whose edges represent the ability to have fertile offspring. I found [1] which is an interesting example of a very lar…
This is another problem with species - where is the transition where one species evolves into another?
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? What do you mean, not working? That the AI was randomly choosing the correct race 82% of the time by luck? I'm confused by what your implying because it would seem to me that the authors went through many steps to try to pinpoint how the AI was doing this identification and how baffling it was to everyone that even with a lot of x-ray information removed (8x8 pixels compared to say 4k), it somehow was still corr…
I'm just making this up, but... Perhaps hospitals that treat a disproportionate share of poor people (which themselves are disproportionately not white), tend to use a different brand of X-ray film, and that brand has different contrast ratios than that of the brand preferred by rich hospitals. Thus, they'd be detecting the different brand of X-ray film rather than anything about the patients themselves. Of course, a…
Most of us radiology folk abandoned film 20 years ago and went to digital systems (CR or DR). This doesn’t negate your query though, as vendors do have different technologies and their images do not look the same.
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#255This caused glorious meltdowns on Twitter. Some people just don't want to face reality.
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, but is it accurate to say that our concept of race amounts to labeling different clusters in an N-dimensional space (where the dimensions are largely biological traits)? I.e., while labeling clusters always entails some amount of approximation (clusters are inherently nebulous), we still label clusters because it's useful. For example, the boundaries between languages are imprecise, but we still bin/label th…
I recently read a (non-fiction) book where exactly that kind of clustering was talked about. It's correct that you'll find clusters in each major continent, but with just 6 clusters one of them will be entirely devoted to a small, insular community in the north of Iran. To your eyes and our social consciousness this community would be considered "middle-eastern" when in reality they're about as genetically as differe…
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're missing the point. "Race" is an attempt to put people with different biological traits into 'buckets' but in reality there's variation, overlap, and blurry lines that make any sort of classification a social approximation at best. No one is going to argue that you get your traits from your ancestors and that regional groups have similar traits due to shared ancestry, it's the classification itself that…
I strongly dislike (almost despise) this argument. Race is a surrogate variable for genetic history. The classification itself indeed matches with reality, as it is generally made on ancestry. Approximation it may be, imperfect it may be, construct it may be, but its utility is very much real. Attempts to handwave it away do not change the fact that race and genetics are very much linked as it is used today.
What's the utility of the concept of race?
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the point?
The point is showing that the heritability of skin tone and height are about the same is meaningless when talking about skin tone differences among races. Literally, news articles are written and go viral about "black couple has white baby", whereas there has never been an article "Two 6'3" people have an adult child who is only 5'5"" If you had a series of 100,000 parents+genetic children paraded in front of you, do…
I suspect you are making a category error comparing "two parents who are both rather taller or both rather shorter than their child" and "two parents who are appear to be of one race, but their child appears to be of a different race".
To put the two into the same category, you could compare "two parents...taller or shorter than their child" and "two parents...lighter skinned or darker skinned than their child"---two aspects that are single traits. And no, I wouldn't be crazy surprised in either case, unless you were specifically thinking about Robert Wadlow and Zeng Jinlian giving birth to Chandra Bahadur Dangi or two parents of Danish descent giving birth to a child with a Bantu skin color. (And no, I don't know the relative frequencies of such events.)
The other way to resolve the category error, if you prefer to compare bundles of traits, would be two people of Italian extraction giving birth to a stereotypical Irish child. That sounds pretty unlikely, especially prior to modern travel and migration patterns.
But the real, underlying question that is the base for "many people really, really don't want race to be real" is, "So what?"
Yes, human beings tend to share traits with other closely related people. So what? Individual variation is pretty large, too.
Historically, Italians and Irish were considered to be different races. Not so much today, because "race" is a social construct and the difference between the Irish, southern Europeans, and the canonical northern European isn't a big deal today.
Races are defined to be a way of applying a group of conclusions, which may be difficult to perceive directly, to an individual who has an easily perceived marker for the race. That can be more-or-less neutral to somewhat pernicious. ("You are Asian, therefore you must be lactose intolerant!" Well, maybe.) Or it can be straight up evil, especially if the conclusions you are making are simply made up to enforce your superiority to the individual.
As a result, race is either not real, or real but completely uninteresting. Any other option is intellectual laziness at best and at worst....well, it leads to poor outcomes.
Now, neither you nor I particularly care whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice, but I hope you can see how someone who has to respond to "So just don't be gay!" might prefer one over the other.
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#259And... they found it looks at the name of the patient on the border of the image or something similar. Like the time some team tried to evolve an FPGA net to solve some problem efficiently with a genetic algorithm and it learned to use a bunch of FPGA transistors as an antenna to communicate with another part of FPGA chip through interference. Unfortunately, it would not work on other FPGA chips even from the same lo…
The images were anonymised. If they AI cheated, it’s not obvious how. The paper is interesting.
Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images
#260Please forgive me for asking a controversial question (particularly so early in the morning), but if there are all of these biological correlations with race, what does it mean that “race is a social construct”? Is the idea that black people have greater bone mineral density (per TFA) due to social or environmental causes (e.g., diet)? For what it’s worth, I’m a staunch egalitarian and I don’t see that changing eithe…
To quote Ruth Wilson Gilmore: “The racial in racial capitalism isn’t secondary, nor did it originate in color or intercontinental conflict, but rather always group-differentiation to premature death. Capitalism requires inequality and racism enshrines it.”[1]
Cedric J. Robinson (among others) have discussed how capitalism and racialization are continually co-created.
1. Abolition Geography and the problem of innocence, in Futures of Black Radicalism.