151–160 of 177 posts
Sounds a bit like Simpson's Paradox [0]
I went to a state school. I then went on to work for multiple firms that placed a premium on candidates from Ivy League/Top Tier (Stanford/Duke etc) candidates. This taught me that: - Their are pros and cons to any selection criteria. - There are smart people everywhere. One of the smartest people I ever worked for spent several years in prison for drug dealing. He was on par with many of the Managing Directors I've…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI “safety” industry is lobbying for federal preemption so that states won’t have the power to enact these types of sensible regulations.
> > European
The European Union passed The Artificial Intelligence Act, which classifies: High-risk – AI applications that are expected to pose significant threats to health, safety, or the fundamental rights of persons. Notably, AI systems used in health, education, recruitment, critical infrastructure management, law enforcement or justice. They are subject to quality, transparency, human oversight and safety obligations That's…
This is one of those things where the first sentence sounds completely fine and reasonable, maybe even objectively good. Of all the things listed "recruitment" doesn't belong to me. Is the argument that it is someone's fundamental human right to get someone else to pay them to do a job? Or is it strictly about human oversight?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And a common rebuttal to the objection is that systemic racism is often difficult to untangle in a way that produces a neat chain of cause and effect (not least of which because discrimination can happen unconsciously or secretly); because the impact exists whether intent can be shown or not, the desire remains to ameliorate that impact. If the issue happens upstream of the defendant to a claim - generally an organiz…
> And a common rebuttal to the objection is that systemic racism is often difficult to untangle in a way that produces a neat chain of cause and effect (not least of which because discrimination can happen unconsciously or secretly) We have a "disparate impact" and nobody can prove what proportion of it is due to things like parental income or childhood education as opposed to racism on the part of the employer. Beca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you like me to define "starting point" in a way that you believe you'll be able to understand? If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here…
You could be an Iranian sponsored bot. I'm not saying you are. You could be so don't get mad at me for publishing that statement. Because if I say "can," then I don't need to be accountable for any misinformation.
The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that other people might agree was worth looking into. A hypothesis is not “misinformation”.
This article has not claimed to have proven anything other than outcomes in a process. I don’t understand why this is so upsetting to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could be an Iranian sponsored bot. I'm not saying you are. You could be so don't get mad at me for publishing that statement. Because if I say "can," then I don't need to be accountable for any misinformation.
I could be! And in science when you posit a hypothesis you then back it up with data points of statistical significance. The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that oth…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And a common rebuttal to the objection is that systemic racism is often difficult to untangle in a way that produces a neat chain of cause and effect (not least of which because discrimination can happen unconsciously or secretly) We have a "disparate impact" and nobody can prove what proportion of it is due to things like parental income or childhood education as opposed to racism on the part of the employer. Beca…
That would end exactly at "Harrison Bergeron" world as described by Kurt Vonnegut, would it not? If every perceived advantage would require you to wear a "handicap".
That's the beauty of aggregate statistics. You have some elite job with 100 slots. Before you had 60 of the slots going to cronies and the remainder being allocated on merit. The cronies were disproportionately of the same ethnicity so your statistics are skewed, but don't worry, all the cronies still get their slots. Because statistics can be balanced by getting even more cronies, this time of a different ethnicity, and giving them as many of what used to be the merit slots as you need to manipulate the average. Using statistics is perfect for pretending that you're giving people something when you're actually taking something away.
I think this partially buries the lede: "As a single hiring vendor comes to dominate screening for an industry, it may be more likely that candidates are shut out." If we move to using just a small number of AI models to help do things like hiring, we will amplify biases and possibly completely lock out portions of the population. We need to be very careful when using AI systems to evaluate people in general -- not b…
If you want to make meaningful change in this avenue you really can't use words like "bias" or "systemic" because anywhere from 49-51% of the population will immediately shut down upon hearing that. Someone can argue (and many do to varying levels of success) that systemic bias doesn't exist, which means this doesn't exist, which means there no problem. However, "this AI model can decide that some subset of people, p…
Note that the OP uses "systemic rejection", while the paper does reference bias, it is in the precise meaning of the word.[0] And this is not targeted at the general public.
You may want to look into the 1990 GOPAC handout "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" to understand why some groups would simply just weaponize any term that was substituted. Academic papers need to error on being precise, to be effective, not focused on handling the general public with kids gloves IMHO.
Edited to add, listen to Lee Atwater's 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy for even more context.