Fair point that can just as easily, and more urgently, be inverted: why don't those building AI for $subject actually engage with the foundational $subject literature? Including the histories of ethics, discrimination, etc in $subject domain...https://twitter.com/jackclarkSF/status/997512143695241217 …
-
-
Replying to @mer__edith
A big factor in that is that AI researchers are often not incentivized and educated to do so. But another part of the answer is that subject literature from the social sciences is often perceived as poor quality, more concerned with ideology than with facts (and unaware of that).
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @mer__edith
The perception that such issues can be distilled down to the mere "facts" is exactly one of the big problems of how technicians approach these questions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M__Verbruggen @mer__edith
In the world of engineers and scientists, facts are the things that are true. That is why the idea that we should also impose things that are not facts sounds disturbing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @mer__edith
For sure & I see how this is an impediment. But arent the foundations of soc science/humanities also taught at schools? Even newspapers make it clear how soc processes cannot be distilled to facts. At least soc scientists except the premises of tech even if they don't read it :P
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M__Verbruggen @mer__edith
Did you notice that governments are not formed by social scientists? Would you think that is a failure of governance or social science? I suspect the field is still fundamentally broken.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @mer__edith
Sorry I don't think I get your question. In my personal view, a good government employs people of all fields so their strengths can be combined; technocrats, subject matter experts, people who understand public policy, statisticians, reps of all segments of the population, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Are you saying that soc science is fundamentally broken because it conflates facts with ideology? I'm actually a historian first, and I do agree with that. But we take it in the opposite direction: Objectivity is not possible, we can only try to make a convincing argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree that any scientific paradigm that thinks “objectivity is not possible and so we can only try to make a convincing argument” is fundamentally broken, and must be burned to the ground. But not all social science is like this.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.