41–50 of 158 posts
It sounds like there were three issues: 1. The contractor targeted homeless people 2. They targeted people with darker skin 3. They may not have been forthright or truthful about what they were doing. Number 3 is clearly wrong. But I think so long as the contractors were upfront and truthful about what they were doing, I don't know if 1 or 2 are problematic. The only argument I can see for why they shouldn't pay home…
Why doesn’t the model trained on one race generalize to different races? That sounds inferior to human vision.
Why doesn’t the model trained on one race generalize to different races? That sounds inferior to human vision.
Human eyes also need to be trained on diverse data. It's the cross-race effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think most people care about privacy all that much. Most live publicly with their faces on display for all to see and others taking it a step further, participating in Facebook alongside billions of others. It doesn’t scream facial identity being a major concern.
I think most people actually care quite a lot. That people live their lives accepting that their faces are on display is not evidence otherwise, since there is literally no other option. Participating Facebook is also not evidence otherwise -- at most, it's evidence that people are willing to trade privacy in some circumstances (and I think even that's a bit of a stretch), but I'll bet that most Facebook users would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The pizza joint hired the stoned teen, he's not contracted by you. It's a pretty rotten analogy.
The pizza joint hired the teen, I contracted the pizza joint to get me a pizza. The teen did it a shitty way that is hard to be expected. Randstad hired the people, Google contracted Randstad to do a job. Randstad's people did it in a shitty way that is hard to expected. It's a pretty fresh analogy.
No, you are not responsible because the teen was not operating within the terms of the contract. You did not authorize or ask him to get stoned or run someone over.
Kudos to Google's contractor for offering this opportunity to the people who need it most. I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I would even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself. This article also mentions that the contractor may have lied to or misled the homeless, which is deplorable. But the behavior described by the title itself is nothing objec…
> I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself. Would you really? My gut feeling tells me that's not the case for most people for privacy or ethical reasons. Just because those people are poor, we expect them to have lower privacy or ethical standards. The link you posted has the following example, I think you're…
A while ago Google got bad press because some image-tagging service identified some people as "gorillas", and IIRC it was blamed on not having enough diversity of skin color in the training data. So... it sounds like at least the "instructed them to target people of color" part of this is them trying to correct that. But in isolation that sounds even worse than the first instance. I guess you're damned if you do, dam…
This is not a case of that.
Google (or its contractor) could easily have done this in a way that was not objectionable. They simply decided not to.
Kudos to Google's contractor for offering this opportunity to the people who need it most. I would happily sell anyone a picture or scan of my face for $5. But I would even more happily have that chance go to someone who needs it more than myself. This article also mentions that the contractor may have lied to or misled the homeless, which is deplorable. But the behavior described by the title itself is nothing objec…
There's a long, long history of leaving women, people of color, poor people and other groups out of data sets. For example, I've read articles that indicate we can't create good photos of people of color because film standards were normalized to white skin. So, try to fix that and... there's hell to pay? File under: "No good deed goes unpunished."
No matter what you make, some minority corner case will break your tech and generate outrage. ("How DARE your speech recognition not work on AAVE!", "How DARE your facial recognition not work on burn center victims!" etc.)