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

AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

explainthispaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 357 posts

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#151

Post by throwaway894345 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #69
dahfizz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how your link applies to this situation. That refers to an interesting way an AI encoded data in an image. The issue here is that this data _exists in the first place_. Whether the AI learned to compress the racial data into an 8x8 picture is besides the point.

The point is “the AI might not be doing what you think it is doing, because it doesn’t actually understand the goal”.

You're misunderstanding the context of the thread. At this point in the thread, we're talking about whether or not there is any biological basis for race, not about the AI example in particular. The premise here is that there is a biological basis--that race is a label applied to a cluster of genetic traits (various facial shape features, skin color, etc) which are almost certainly genetically constructed.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#152

Post by soundnote »

ceejayoz wrote: post #127
soundnote wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or: Race is a rough proxy for breeding populations that have been separated for long time, and subject to different environments' selection pressure. Over time, selection and blind luck build up all manner of small differences, which both observably exist at the surface (so why not inside the body) and that you'd expect to exist from basic evolutionary principles. You'd expect a Norwegian forest cat, a Saharan desert…

> Lions purr, after all. They do not, actually. Incapable of it; cheetahs are the only big cats that can do it. https://www.nwf.org/Magazines/National-Wildlife/1995/Questio... > Purring ability, rather than size or behavior, is one of two chief distinctions between the two main genera of cat, Felis and Panthera.

Huh, TIL.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#153

Post by esyir »

packetlost wrote: post #105
phkahler wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> People are not 'race x' or 'race y' biologically, as if race is some discrete set of features common to a whole population. Clearly people are biologically different based on race and the AI here is picking up on that. My kids orthodontist even told me they align teeth in part based on race. The Asian arch is flatter across the front for example. I asked about this because an engineer I worked with had a father in…

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.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#154

Post by ceejayoz »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #151
ceejayoz wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is “the AI might not be doing what you think it is doing, because it doesn’t actually understand the goal”.

You're misunderstanding the context of the thread. At this point in the thread, we're talking about whether or not there is any biological basis for race, not about the AI example in particular. The premise here is that there is a biological basis--that race is a label applied to a cluster of genetic traits (various facial shape features, skin color, etc) which are almost certainly genetically constructed.

The comment I replied to stated "clearly there must be some biological basis for race, if an AI can determine race from an x-ray".

I'm pointing out that's not necessarily true. First, we have to prove that the AI is determining race from an x-ray. It's effectiveness at doing it via 64 pixels makes me skeptical that it is.

After that, we get into sticky territory determining whether any biological differences we can identify between races are caused by genetics, or environmental/societal factors like disparities in healthcare, diet, neighborhoods built over old SuperFund sites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal), etc.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#155

Post by fao_ »

naasking wrote: post #145
packetlost wrote: post #105

Earlier 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…

> "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. The same is true of "species". Last I checked, there were at least 24 different definitions of "species", all of which have some overlap and none of which are perfectly precise. You don't see people going a…

You're so, so close to getting it. And then you decide to just hop over the point :(

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#156

Post by andreyk »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #14

Please 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…

From what I understand, the definition of a social construct is a bit nuanced, and it's possible to both believe race is a social construct and that it correlates with things.

As a metaphor, let's say we create two categories in the world for all people - tallers (people above six feet in height) and shorters (people below six feet in height). Human height objectively exists, but these categories are social constructs. Likewise, human variations in genes based on ancestry clearly exists, but the discrete racial categories we define (black, white, asian, etc.) are social constructs since we could create other discrete categories (Irish, Slavic, etc.).

So saying race is a social construct does not mean your genetic make up does not matter or correlate with anything, but that grouping people into the set of commonly agreed upon races is not the inherent way it has to be. At the same time, these groupings do represent distinct genetic make up and so correlate with physical attributes. It's just that different groupings with different correlations are also possible.

This video explains it pretty well IMO: https://youtu.be/koud7hgGyQ8

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#157

Post by Jensson »

ceejayoz wrote: post #94
jcims wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if it was an 8x8 grayscale photo of their face? We wouldn't be particularly surprised that it can guess race. The fact that we struggle to detect patterns in the data doesn't mean they don't exist.

> We wouldn't be particularly surprised that it can guess race. That's actually a great example of this problem, though. https://www.theverge.com/21298762/face-depixelizer-ai-machin... > It’s a startling image that illustrates the deep-rooted biases of AI research. Input a low-resolution picture of Barack Obama, the first black president of the United States, into an algorithm designed to generate depixelated faces,…

Wanting the AI to have the same racial bias as Americans, that is that Barrack Obama who is half white half east African should be categorised the same as someone with west African heritage is just dumb. Barrack Obama has a white mother and a father from Kenya, so has little resemblance to African Americans who have mostly west African heritage, only reason people don't see a difference is because they are so used to categorise people by skin color. Of course getting data from all areas of Africa and all mixes of people would be great, but there are limits and adding in more west Africans wouldn't have helped accurately depixel Obamas face.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#158

Post by neaden »

goatlover wrote: post #111
phkahler wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> People are not 'race x' or 'race y' biologically, as if race is some discrete set of features common to a whole population. Clearly people are biologically different based on race and the AI here is picking up on that. My kids orthodontist even told me they align teeth in part based on race. The Asian arch is flatter across the front for example. I asked about this because an engineer I worked with had a father in…

So you're saying there is an Asian race spanning 4.5 billion people from China to India to Iran and there are also German and Irish races. I guess the question is how can Germans and Irish be different races, but Chinese, Indians and Iranians are the same race? Africa is going to be similarly diverse as Asia.

More diverse, there is more genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#159

Post by esyir »

roflc0ptic wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can be both real physiological differences and a social construct, as "what level of bone density tips you from x to y" becomes a question, as does "is an x person with calcium deficiency actually a y person" sort of things that are obviously not the case.

As someone with a scientific bent who is of the left, I always find it incredibly frustrating when people say “x is a social construct”, because it’s technically true, but also utterly elides the dual nature of the category. Race is a social construct that can be used to infer true things (probabilities) about the real world! Other social constructs that have this property: sociology, economics, physics… This isn’t t…

Agreed on both fronts. There's a lot of attempts here to use "race is a social construct" to indirectly claim that race is meaningless, or at least imply that.

People need to realise the following: - Race is a social construct - It's also a proxy for ancestry - Ancestry is a proxy for genetic history - None of the above contradict each other.

It is possible that we could sufficiently redefine race and ethnicity such that the above isn't true, but as it is right now, race is at least moderately coupled to a biological signature.

What should also be emphasized is that race isn't an end-all. The within race variation is far greater than the between-race variation.

Re: AI Recognises Race in Medical Images

#160

Post by pessimizer »

naasking wrote: post #145
packetlost wrote: post #105

Earlier 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…

> "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. The same is true of "species". Last I checked, there were at least 24 different definitions of "species", all of which have some overlap and none of which are perfectly precise. You don't see people going a…

I admire the confidence of someone who can say in the same paragraph that there are 24 different definitions (constructions) of "species," then deny that they are a social construct at all.
Post reply on HN