The analogies I can think of are more like "flipping the coin 6000 time times and getting 4000 heads". Not sure where you're coming from with this one, but would be interested to hear more.
-
-
-
The point is that there are all sorts of reasons the outcome might not be 50/50 that have nothing to do with discrimination.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Tämä twiitti ei ole saatavilla.
-
Again, you need to define precisely what the AI is trying to do. All of this doesn't make sense because probabilities are just that probabilities, nothing more.
Keskustelun loppu
-
-
-
A variant of the Monte Carlo's fallacy.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The "debiasing"/ML fairness crowd just wants outcomes produced to reflect their preferences and sensibilities, no matter whether it reflects the underlying reality or undermines the actual functionality.
-
I don't know anything about ML or AI but I would guess that "artificial" =/= "reality"
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
An apple called and asked for its orange back.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
A coin gives 6 million heads and 4 million tails (a not uncommon DL dataset size) and the AI ethics crowd calls it a biased coin. Pedro gets mad, rails at the "Woke SJWs", throws all his toys on the floor and rage tweets "The coin didn't INTEND it so it CANNOT be a biased"
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The whole emphasis on algorithm bias/fairness is wrong-headed. Sorting algos sort, well or badly. Same for pattern recognition ... This stuff is an attempt to exert political control over a hot area of STEM. No thanks.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.