5
0

Liberals demand the end of objective algorithms in AI because they tell the truth


 invite response                
2020 Dec 22, 9:13am   535 views  14 comments

by Patrick   ➕follow (55)   💰tip   ignore  

https://spectator.us/militant-liberals-politicizing-artificial-intelligence/

What do you do if decisions that used to be made by humans, with all their biases, start being made by algorithms that are mathematically incapable of bias? If you’re rational, you should celebrate. If you’re a militant liberal, you recognize this development for the mortal threat it is, and scramble to take back control. ...

Every paper describing how to speed up an algorithm, for example, now needs to have a section on the social goods and evils of this obscure technical advance. ‘Regardless of scientific quality or contribution,’ stated the call for papers, ‘a submission may be rejected for . . . including methods, applications, or data that create or reinforce unfair bias.’

This was only the latest turn of the ratchet. Previous ones have included renaming the conference to something more politically correct and requiring attendees to explicitly accept a comprehensive ‘code of conduct’ before they can register, which allows the conference to kick attendees out for posting something on social media that officials disapproved of. ...

I posted a few tweets raising questions about the latest changes — and the cancel mob descended on me. Insults, taunts, threats — you name it. You’d think that scientists would be above such behaviors, but no. ...

But machine-learning algorithms, like pretty much all algorithms you find in computer-science textbooks, are essentially just complex mathematical formulas that know nothing about race, gender or socioeconomic status. They can’t be racist or sexist any more than the formula y = a x + b can.

Daniel Kahneman’s bestselling book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, has a whole chapter on how algorithms are more objective than humans, and therefore make better decisions. To the militant liberal mind, however, they are cesspools of iniquity and must be cleaned up.

What cleaning up algorithms means, in practice, is inserting into them biases favoring specific groups, in effect reestablishing in automated form the social controls that the political left is so intent on. ‘Debiasing’, in other words, means adding bias. Not surprisingly, this causes the algorithms to perform worse at their intended function. Credit-card scoring algorithms may reject more qualified applicants in order to ensure that the same number of women and men are accepted. Parole-consultation algorithms may recommend letting more dangerous criminals go free for the sake of having a proportional number of whites and blacks released. ...

The more prominent the researcher that gets canceled, the better, because it sends the most chilling message to everyone else, particularly junior researchers. ...

Algorithms increasingly run our lives, and they can impose a militantly liberal (in reality illiberal) society by the back door. Every time you do a web search, use social media or get recommendations from Amazon or Netflix, algorithms choose what you see. Algorithms help select job candidates, voters to target in political campaigns, and even people to date. Businesses and legislators alike need to ensure that they are not tampered with. And all of us need to be aware of what is happening, so we can have a say.


Truth is destroyed by liberal bigotry.

Comments 1 - 14 of 14        Search these comments

1   Eric Holder   2020 Dec 22, 10:19am  

There are some cunts who make a career out of it. Like that "voice of AI ethics" at Google who made some bold demands under threat of quitting and now is crying and whaling after being told that her demands are unreasonable and she's fired. Suddenly she wants her job back.
2   Patrick   2020 Dec 22, 5:40pm  

Even scientific reports are being forced to comply with liberal lies about reality:

https://reclaimthenet.org/study-men-women-mentors-retracted-outrage/

A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications that said careers of female scientists who have had female mentors suffer as a result, came under fire on Twitter from those outraged by its findings.

About a month ago, the journal directly reacted to this pressure by saying it would “investigate” as a matter of priority the paper authored by researchers from the New York University in Abu Dhabi, and the result now is that it has been retracted by its authors.
3   Bd6r   2020 Dec 22, 5:50pm  

Patrick says
Even scientific reports are being forced to comply with liberal lies about reality:

There have been several papers withdrawn under woketard pressure because they claim un-pc ideas. Cancel culture, witch-burning, Cultural revolution all come to mind.

https://nationalpost.com/news/canadian-professor-lambasted-for-diversity-article-german-journal-apologizes

Article itself can be found here:

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/chemdna/files/2020/06/10.1002anie.202006717.pdf
4   Patrick   2020 Dec 22, 5:58pm  

Yes, I recall another one which simply claimed that males show greater variability than females in almost all respects.

This was offensive to womxn, and was retracted by the publisher after they had already published it.

And yet no one attempted to prove that it was not factual.
5   Bd6r   2020 Dec 22, 6:03pm  

Patrick says
And yet no one attempted to prove that it was not factual.

WRT to paper above, it was yanked after being PEER-REVIEWED, which is unprecedented. None of the woke crowd provided any arguments against what was said in paper, it was just screeching. Supposedly, paper can be yanked from journal only if there are demonstrable errors in science...
6   Patrick   2020 Dec 23, 12:22pm  

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alphabet-google-research-focus/google-told-its-scientists-to-strike-a-positive-tone-in-ai-research-documents-idUSKBN28X1CB

Google’s new review procedure asks that researchers consult with legal, policy and public relations teams before pursuing topics such as face and sentiment analysis and categorizations of race, gender or political affiliation, according to internal webpages explaining the policy. ...

Four staff researchers, including senior scientist Margaret Mitchell, said they believe Google is starting to interfere with crucial studies of potential technology harms.

“If we are researching the appropriate thing given our expertise, and we are not permitted to publish that on grounds that are not in line with high-quality peer review, then we’re getting into a serious problem of censorship,” Mitchell said. ...

Some have cited scientific studies showing that facial analysis software and other AI can perpetuate biases...


I think the problem here is that objective reality is in direct contradiction with liberal fantasy. One example is that black people rob, rape, and murder white people at about 12 times the reverse rate. This fact must be ruthlessly suppressed somehow, or the whole narrative of "white racism" falls apart.

Again, most black people won't hurt you, but the reality is that you can protect yourself from serious harm simply by classifying people by race and avoiding being around black neighborhoods. What to do?
7   georgeliberte   2020 Dec 23, 1:19pm  

In newspeak, 'Objectivity is biased.'
8   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Dec 23, 2:35pm  

Patrick says
What do you do if decisions that used to be made by humans, with all their biases, start being made by algorithms that are mathematically incapable of bias?

Ha ha ha! This is easy: You blame the algorithms for being biased!

Well, actually, you blame the data used to train the AI algorithms, which was data generated by biased humans before the AI. I suppose I could believe there is some truth to the training data being biased. But still, people looking to overcome the algorithms by doing the "right" things to look good (which hopefully aligns with the "right" things in real world) should be fine regardless of potential bias. At least you're not facing a human-to-human interview if it's a computer algorithm.
9   Shaman   2020 Dec 23, 2:45pm  

I really really wish that journalists would stop referring to the Leftist cancel mob as “liberals.”
They aren’t liberal. They’re Nazis.
10   Shaman   2020 Dec 23, 2:48pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
Ha ha ha! This is easy: You blame the algorithms for being biased!


Would that be “respecting science” or not? Science is and must be based on objective fact or it’s not science but dogma, indistinguishable from any papal decree or Islamic fatwa.

On a related note: anyone else feel like the politicians and medical “experts” have entered into an unholy “religious” alliance that subverts truth and science and upholds dogma as true religion? If you question the narrative or provide facts that contradict it, you’re guilty of heresy and must be punished by the people who claim to stand for “science.”
11   Patrick   2020 Dec 23, 3:17pm  

Absolutely. Any doctor who systematically lists the scientific evidence that HCQ cuts the death rate from Wuhan virus risks having his license revoked.
12   SunnyvaleCA   2020 Dec 23, 4:10pm  

Shaman says
I really really wish that journalists would stop referring to the Leftist cancel mob as “liberals.”
They aren’t liberal. They’re Nazis.

I really really wish people didn't label as "Nazis" anyone they disagree with. :-)

Nazis are people that go off the right side of the political spectrum. I think the "Leftist cancel mob" could be more accurately described as socialist or communist.

But this all brings up a good point... we should have a consistent set of terms that can be used for accurate communication. Politicians, marketers, and sales-people constantly try to twist words. There needs to be strong pushback.

Hey, and those people aren't "journalists" either! How about "promoters and creators of fake news."

"Liberal" used to mean a person who espoused "liberty." In the social dimension the old meaning of "liberal" is probably closest to what we call "libertarian" now.
13   Eric Holder   2020 Dec 23, 4:30pm  

SunnyvaleCA says
I really really wish people didn't label as "Nazis" anyone they disagree with. :-)

Nazis are people that go off the right side of the political spectrum. I think the "Leftist cancel mob" could be more accurately described as socialist...


"Nazi" is a short for "National-Socialist".
14   HeadSet   2020 Dec 23, 4:32pm  

Nazis are people that go off the right side of the political spectrum.

How is National Socialism "right?" Nazis believe in an all powerful central government and differ from the Communists only in that Nazis allow private ownership (but even then under total government control) while Communists have total state ownership of anything bigger than a radish patch. China today is actually more "Nazi" than "Communist." Right wing wants small government, and the ultimate right winger would want no government at all, an anarchist.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions