441–450 of 697 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are you proposing? Democracy isn't perfect but it's the best political system we have come up with to date.
It's great, as long as you are in the majority. But if you're in the 49% (or less) category, then it is tyrannical and untenable. I don't know if you have a family, but if you do, do you put all of your decisions as a parent to a vote?
> men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically, both statements are justified. Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.)
> Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g ...because the former holds true across correlations (and is difficult to confound anyway, since the group 'men' and the group 'women' are distributed in like proportion through correlated groups - rich and poor, white and black, around the world, etc), while the latter is very difficult to convincingly show because controlling…
This is in itself useful information, at least in principle. To take the political correct example, let's say that I am a bissexual man. A priori, the probability that I will be attacked will be greater when dating a man. Is this useful? I don't know. That will depend how strong the difference is in the first place and how fast I can update my estimation based on new information.
How can you be sure than men are intrinsically more violent than women anyway? Couldn't it just be because of the way men are raised (i.e. the patriarchy)?
> men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically, both statements are justified. Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.)
These statistics you're referring to, how comparable are the relative differences? Do they show that men are 4 times more violent than women and black people are 1.1 more violent than white people, for example? What are these figures?
This is what you get in our post-truth world that is now a performative acceptable truth world. It's basically cherry picking opinions, perceptions and half-truths that are favorable to an ideological agenda, and dismissing anything else. Where the dismissing part gets increasingly aggressive. It doesn't have to make sense, be logical or consistent. It's not a truth struggle, it's a power struggle. It's tumblr and 4c…
Honestly, this is probably just representative of the bias in what people producing the training data came up with when asked to produce or flag hateful speech, or some other analogous training bias rather than a purposeful act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How am I blaming the victim? I am simply pointing out that language can indicate bias without necessarily being biased itself. I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here. It isn't actually indicating anything about the language. It is telling u…
> I am guessing that if we applied a similar model to Russian and English, the model would indicate there is an inherent bias against the west in Russian and a bias against Russia in English. That is all were seeing here. It isn't actually indicating anything about the language. It is telling us about who uses the language and how they use it. So if your argument is that the model has been trained on a collection of…
It doesn't specifically need to be "assembled by liberals" to have a liberal bias. Liberal people are more likely to categorize anything as hate speech than conservatives. Liberals think being PC is important. Conservatives are generally dismissive of being PC. Even if there is no inherent bias in the makeup of this hypothetical review panel, the panel will result in ruling that are more in line with liberal thought because conservatives are less likely to take an active lead in labeling hate speech.
>But if your argument is that (speculatively) republicans engage more in hate speech, then bad things said about republicans is not detected as hate speech by the model, the jump is rather far.
My argument is that these systems can't actually identify hate speech. The question isn't whether Republicans engage in hate speech more frequently. They likely engage in speech that resembles hate speech more frequently because they don't care about being PC.
Usage of the term Latinx is an example. I have heard valid arguments why people should are shouldn't use that term, however its usage is currently much more common in liberal circles. Therefore a phrase using "latinx" instead of "latino" is going to be less correlated with hate speech because racists just aren't using "latinx".
> men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically, both statements are justified. Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is culture. Actually science on violence and aggression tend to show a bit different picture, and also why such statistics is of such a low value. Good research tend to explore the null hypothesis and alternative explanation for statistical results. A common used data point is that men commit most violent crimes. Using the same data from Sweden one can also say that today Muslim are 20 times more likely per person…
One claim I've seen is that men commit more violent crime because it's more common for a man to be physically stronger than another person, while the rates of non-physial violence are much closer across gender boundaries.
Come again? What's non-physical violence? Mental violence? Writing someone a mean letter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to be clear I'm not trying to equate child abuse to circumcision or view them as morally equivalent, I just don't think its a stretch to call circumcision mutilation, even if it generally isn't intended to be harmful.
> I just don't think its a stretch to call circumcision mutilation It isn't a stretch for an individual to do it. It is a stretch to expect a language model to do it because society at large does not describe it that way.
This is what you get in our post-truth world that is now a performative acceptable truth world. It's basically cherry picking opinions, perceptions and half-truths that are favorable to an ideological agenda, and dismissing anything else. Where the dismissing part gets increasingly aggressive. It doesn't have to make sense, be logical or consistent. It's not a truth struggle, it's a power struggle. It's tumblr and 4c…
Honestly, this is probably just representative of the bias in what people producing the training data came up with when asked to produce or flag hateful speech, or some other analogous training bias rather than a purposeful act.
You can be sure that if you launch a tool like this, within the hour the first tweet comes "look how racist this is!!!!!", which then goes viral.
The particular user having that goal in mind already, and supremely happy that it is so. It validates them and rewards them, this hysterical addiction to division and outrage. The AI being racist (or perceived to be so) didn't happen to them from good faith usage (as an unwelcome surprise they came across), the outcome is actively chased and fabricated: how can I make it look racist?
That's how broken and hostile the environment has become. In these conditions, both companies and individuals have to over-correct.
> men have a bigger tendency for violent behavior than women Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g (or asians, or muslims/christians) and it's discriminatory? (Statistically, both statements are justified. Morally, neither is, as we should treat people as individuals, not as members of X group.)
> Why is this considered good / normal / expected, but s/men/blacks/g and s/women/whites/g ...because the former holds true across correlations (and is difficult to confound anyway, since the group 'men' and the group 'women' are distributed in like proportion through correlated groups - rich and poor, white and black, around the world, etc), while the latter is very difficult to convincingly show because controlling…
It's widely known among researchers that women initiate domestic violence more frequently compared to men.
Example (1s on Google): https://aliesq.medium.com/extensive-research-women-initiate-...
I first learned about this from a famous feminist (woman) from the UK.