Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 605 posts

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#71

Post by [deleted] »

mustyoshi wrote: post #49
healsdata wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe that someone would say something similar about any other aspect of cultural identity and not be instantly flagged for it. Are you truly advocating that people should no longer be proud of their cultural identity? Are you applying that to all the folks in tech who proudly identify as Christian or Jewish? Does it apply to Italian Americans and Indigenous people? What about folks who are proud…

Why can't you just be American? Both my parents were born here, they've explained our lineage, but I literally don't care. I'm an American, America is my culture and country.

[deleted]

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#72

Post by NotYourLawyer »

fullshark wrote: post #35
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #4

Who thought this was ever a good idea?

If you are going to build a series of anthropomorphized chat bots, what are you going to do, NOT build a proud black queer mama that underserved users can connect with? Sounds racist/homophobic to do that, hence you must build chatbots for a wide swathe of the world ---> Voila.

QED

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#73

Post by RonaldDump »

naming_the_user wrote: post #70
RonaldDump wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people bring this up then, any time race is mentioned? It's such a trivial point to make, it doesn't add anything. Ok, so "black" or "White" are not absolutely clear labels that we can use to describe every single person ever. No shit... Still, Morgan Freeman is black and Margot Robbie is White, and I'm White because both my parents are White, and if there's a serial killer roaming the streets then knowing if…

It's the contradiction that I'm describing in my post, I think. Obviously black and white skin colours exist as do things like physical features. The social construct is that people tie those to identity. Both within and without the group. But then it seems as if that is self-perpetuating. People can have perfectly valid reasons to dislike culture, so if we tie culture to appearance, then people are going to make jud…

But if I understand the angle of "social constructioners" correctly, they're not disputing that what we might call 'ethnicities' or 'tribes' exist (ie. a group of people of common ancestry and with a distinct genotype), it's just that trying to lump the thousands of these into a few broad categories, like "black", is far too crude to be useful.

But ethnicities still exist. So would it not be valid to be "ethnicist" (ie. very specifically racist), like "Those Sami people are so x" or "Gosh those Bantu people are y"?

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#74

Post by thunky »

naming_the_user wrote: post #8
kmonsen wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Race is clearly cultural in todays society because we can make it so. Very unlikely to be genetically culturally if that is what you are saying (but of course, who knows).

What I'm saying is that it the AI to me illustrates how much of a self-own drawing these cultural battle lines is. If you choose to describe yourself by the colour of your skin first and foremost then you're telling everyone that you think that's relevant information which is, well.. the entire problem - you're telling everyone around you that you think it has predictive power. But that's what racists are, people who…

> But that's what racists are, people who think the race of a person has predictive power with regard to their nature, culture etc.

I didn't think that's how the term racist is normally used. A definition:

a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group

Big difference.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#75

Post by asveikau »

RonaldDump wrote: post #73
naming_the_user wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the contradiction that I'm describing in my post, I think. Obviously black and white skin colours exist as do things like physical features. The social construct is that people tie those to identity. Both within and without the group. But then it seems as if that is self-perpetuating. People can have perfectly valid reasons to dislike culture, so if we tie culture to appearance, then people are going to make jud…

But if I understand the angle of "social constructioners" correctly, they're not disputing that what we might call 'ethnicities' or 'tribes' exist (ie. a group of people of common ancestry and with a distinct genotype), it's just that trying to lump the thousands of these into a few broad categories, like "black", is far too crude to be useful. But ethnicities still exist. So would it not be valid to be "ethnicist" (…

Ethnicities and tribes and inclusion therein are ambiguous, and it changes over time. Look at any society and its history. They're not homogeneous. All the historical countries and tribes were multiethnic.

One example is Rome. Every region or province, even Italia, consisted of different ethnic groups. At one point there was a diverse group in a small area called the Latins. The Romans were a single ethnic group in Latium who first took over and assimilated the other Latins who were distinct, then whole peninsula absorbing Etruscans and celts and Greeks in the south and others, absorbed people from all over Europe and north Africa and Asia minor...

But it's fashionable among young internet white supremacists to say these were all pasty white dudes.

The truth is it's an anachronism to compare racial categorizations from two different time periods where differences were not seen in the same way or with the same context. Afaik the Romans didn't really have a construct of race that was the same as our modern ones. And they assimilated and erased many distinctions over time.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#76

Post by naming_the_user »

thunky wrote: post #74
naming_the_user wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm saying is that it the AI to me illustrates how much of a self-own drawing these cultural battle lines is. If you choose to describe yourself by the colour of your skin first and foremost then you're telling everyone that you think that's relevant information which is, well.. the entire problem - you're telling everyone around you that you think it has predictive power. But that's what racists are, people who…

> But that's what racists are, people who think the race of a person has predictive power with regard to their nature, culture etc. I didn't think that's how the term racist is normally used. A definition: a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group Big difference.

You're right, but in practice I don't really consider it as being too fundamentally different because it's the logical conclusion from strong enough predictive power.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#77

Post by RonaldDump »

asveikau wrote: post #75
RonaldDump wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if I understand the angle of "social constructioners" correctly, they're not disputing that what we might call 'ethnicities' or 'tribes' exist (ie. a group of people of common ancestry and with a distinct genotype), it's just that trying to lump the thousands of these into a few broad categories, like "black", is far too crude to be useful. But ethnicities still exist. So would it not be valid to be "ethnicist" (…

Ethnicities and tribes and inclusion therein are ambiguous, and it changes over time. Look at any society and its history. They're not homogeneous. All the historical countries and tribes were multiethnic. One example is Rome. Every region or province, even Italia, consisted of different ethnic groups. At one point there was a diverse group in a small area called the Latins. The Romans were a single ethnic group in L…

What's that got to do with anything?

What's stopping me from identifying variation in the frequency of different traits between ethnic groups in the current day? It's not a virtue to pretend not to notice such things (or, indeed, to be truly incapable of the most basic pattern recognition).

I think the argument could then be made that if you identify traits common to closely related tribes (eg. indigenous East African) that are noticeably different from the frequency or magnitude of these traits in a different cluster of closely related tribes (eg. indigenous Scandinavian) then there should be no reason to pretend to ignore them.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#78

Post by defrost »

RonaldDump wrote: post #77
asveikau wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ethnicities and tribes and inclusion therein are ambiguous, and it changes over time. Look at any society and its history. They're not homogeneous. All the historical countries and tribes were multiethnic. One example is Rome. Every region or province, even Italia, consisted of different ethnic groups. At one point there was a diverse group in a small area called the Latins. The Romans were a single ethnic group in L…

What's that got to do with anything? What's stopping me from identifying variation in the frequency of different traits between ethnic groups in the current day ? It's not a virtue to pretend not to notice such things (or, indeed, to be truly incapable of the most basic pattern recognition). I think the argument could then be made that if you identify traits common to closely related tribes (eg. indigenous East Afric…

It's a fair point that some indigenous African bushmen, even today, spend time watching lions and pressuring them off of fresh kills in order to take home the leftovers, as they have done for centuries.

It's equally fair to observe that the offspring of those very same bushmen when transfered to a Scandinavian country may spend more time word processing or catching trains.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#79

Post by xracy »

naming_the_user wrote: post #5

> Those AI profiles included Liv, whose profile described her as a “proud Black queer momma of 2 & truth-teller” I find this stuff absolutely fascinating, that even an AI bot tries to do this sort of thing. It just strikes me that there is no world in which racism will ever die out as long as things like this are happening. You can't have it both ways. If race is just melanin content then we have no issue. That's the…

People will discriminate against people of color because they are visually people of color. Whether or not they 'announce it'. It's utter BS to suggest that the only reason people discriminate against black people is because they 'identify as black'.

Like, if all the black people would just stop identifying as 'black' racism would be solved?

Maybe I'm misreading your comment, but all of the responses to this suggest to me you're on a different planet than I am. Alternatively you drank the early 2000s kool-aid that "people don't see race" and thought that was actually working until people started identifying as the thing they get criticized on the internet for being.

Re: Meta is killing off its AI-powered Instagram and Facebook profiles

#80

Post by xracy »

I feel like the question I want to ask is "Why do we need AI-Profiles?" Like, I can barely be bothered to keep in touch with my friends and family. Why do I need a fake person to be follow on social media? What purpose does it serve? What possibly comes out of this that is positive?
Post reply on HN