Uhh

BrokenBarbell · 2021-03-11T10:34:13+00:00

Because "diversity" isn't a qualification.

tilio · 2021-03-11T13:20:41+00:00

did some digging, and allegedly...

they stripped off names, addresses, phone numbers, and converted any pronouns. men were utterly dominating. not even close.

drilling down, they found that every time someone claimed membership or leadership in some association, if it had a demography in the name, the person was objectively less qualified. being on the board of the "african american medical association" is objectively less prestigious than being on the board of the "american medical association" (without regard to race). the solution was to replace the org name on resumes and cover letters with just a demography abstraction (e.g. so "african american medical association" becomes "<demography> medical association"). but this proved what some minorities are already saying -- exclusionary qualifiers for a group based on something arbitrary (like sex or race) make the members worse, not better. with "black brain surgeons" vs "black healthcare workers" ... brain surgeon is better than healthcare worker even though both are exclusionary, but that is a term denoting skill and achievement. the AI knows that with "black brain surgeons" vs "brain surgeons", the second group will be better virtually always because adding an arbitrary exclusion like race makes the pool smaller, and smaller pools are objectively worse. i couldn't really find an explanation how they addressed this problem, but as they kept drilling down, it only got worse.

and pool size absolutely matters. if you took a random sample pool of 100 candidates who are all white males, and a random sample pool of 10,000 candidates who are all white males, and you take the top 10 of each group, the second group is significantly better over 99.99% of the time. and this is holding race/sex constant, meaning it avoids the question of differences in races/sexes -- the larger group is just better. it's why school sports are typically divisioned based on their size and the best teams come from the biggest schools.

now add in even a single race/sex difference on pool size, not even talking about skill... just pool size. female labor force participation is 20 points lower than males overall, and when you get into engineering, finance, and logistics (amazon's key areas), men outnumber women 10:1 or more. this means the pool size for females is significantly smaller than males. so now let's assume men and women are completely equal in skills, providing normal distributions of each. let's say you're hiring 100 people and forcing 50:50, so you take the top 50 males and top 50 females, it means:

your top 10 males average the same score as your first female
your second female is worse than your top 10 males, and equal to males 11-20.
third female is equal to males 21-30
fourth female is equal to males 31-40
fifth female is equal to males 41-50
females 6-50 are worse than literally all 50 males.

and that's just talking results of having different pool sizes with a presumption of equal skill level distributions. it's why stanford and UCLA found that organizations forcing diversity actually make people MORE racist and sexist -- forcing diversity quotas guarantees that almost every female/minority in the room is less qualified than literally all white/asian males in the room. even crazier, stanford found the people who become the most racist/sexist against women and minorities in forced diversity situations are actually females/minorities themselves, not white/asian males.

but wait, there's more! we know for a fact that there are measurably different skill levels across races/sexes. those distributions are not equal. men on average handle geospatial/programmatic reasoning and risk analysis and bigass-box-lifting-and-truck-loading-and-unloading MANY times better than women and it's not even close (again, all key amazon skills). so instead of just having a 10:1 pool size problem with equal distributions, the male distribution is much more right shifted than the female distribution. the top woman will average the top 100 men (or worse), meaning literally all men in the picked group are now better than nearly all of the women.

amazon re-added all details in another pilot of the testing, and the AI came up with the same results as before, just now it took a lot less cycles. it sees john or jiang at the top and knows that they're more qualified than jane, juan, jaquisha, and jerome... because on average, they are and it's not even close.

this replicates every study that's ever been done in this area... shit, even the australian government did a "diversity and inclusion" effort where they did all this manually. when rating resumes that were stripped of demography details, even female and minority raters graded white and asian male resumes as significantly higher than everyone else. australia cancelled the program shortly after.

this has caused serious problems at google, facebook, amazon, etc, because the only way they've been able to counter this is to just stop hiring top white/asian males. they occasionally hire the 30th percentile of white/asian males, while hiring the top 1st percentile of females. of course this just distorts the system and pushes the problem elsewhere. if you're a top 1st percentile white/asian male, google won't hire you, not even an option. so now you're just starting your own company, which is why nearly 100% of startups are white/asian male founders so nearly 100% of venture capital goes to white/asian male founded startups.

"diversity and inclusion" is just a cult ideology. it has no basis in reality.

Ody_ssey · 2021-03-11T10:35:41+00:00

Women perceive meritocracy as sexism because they aren't good at it.

alienmuseum · 2021-03-11T12:00:55+00:00

The computer doesn't care about the gender. It only has the quantifiable data to go by.

CyberSmith34 · 2021-03-11T10:40:11+00:00

How come the woke circus calls itself progressive, while the woke "values" clearly stand in the way of progress? Guess electrons and transistors are now also sexist.

Miserable-Lemon · 2021-03-11T12:10:11+00:00

I'm just saying, there's good reasons why chess leagues are separated between men and women.. actual rational thinking and maturity counts for a lot

Red_Liner740 · 2021-03-11T13:19:18+00:00

“Women are prejudiced against for being women!!”

Okay, let’s use an AI with no gender inputs to applicants! That way women won’t be prejudiced against....

“Nooo!! The outcome is not what we wanted therefore the AI is sexist!!”

That right there should tell you what a lot of men have found out through their lives. Stop listening to women.

itookyomilk · 2021-03-11T16:10:46+00:00

If the AI picked mostly women, it would be on the news and the top story here on reddit. But it's men so kill it.

TheReidman · 2021-03-11T11:07:35+00:00

[removed]

DKN3 · 2021-03-11T14:49:43+00:00

[deleted]

PresidentOf4UM · 2021-03-11T14:45:35+00:00

it's ironic to read this after reading another post from one of our conrades, who lost his job because a LGTV+ brought "diversity" to his company.

AshyCinder · 2021-03-11T16:21:32+00:00

Imagine building an AI who’s sole purpose is to get the best workers. And then you shut it down for doing it’s job.

ActOutside4853 · 2021-03-11T21:45:09+00:00

Honest Engine?

asdf333aza · 2021-03-11T15:01:30+00:00

Because the machine operates on logic.

Throw the emotional human aspect and of course the men would be better options in nearly all situations.

silentmmgh · 2021-03-11T19:01:30+00:00

Call the wahmbulance

PretendDeparture7400 · 2021-03-11T19:38:15+00:00

🤡🌎🤡

1AureaAurora1 · 2021-03-12T04:09:31+00:00

Imagine growing up thinking someday all this tech and computers and software would take humanity to the stars and beyond......

Nah. Let's just write code for infinite genders, penises, vaginas and a 'diverse' race to the collapse.

ElonIsSatoshi · 2021-03-11T21:34:43+00:00

Do a google search for news articles on this and see what kind of articles you get. Every single one tried their best to paint a picture that the AI is sexist and not "gender neutral".
They can strip any gender identifying feature set and feed it into the algo and you still get the same bias.

DatBoiCrump · 2021-03-11T22:28:54+00:00

Based

Crusty_Dick · 2021-03-12T02:04:23+00:00

Uhh.... Shit...

2021-03-12T08:37:30+00:00

Hmmm maybe an AI overlord aint that bad. Beats a feminist overlord anyway.

Epicalyx246 · 2021-03-31T23:47:29+00:00

If woman were picked more no one would of cancelled the poor AI.

Title	Uhh
Author	TheTastelessBatman
Upvotes	652
Comments	53
Date	March 11, 2021 9:38 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MGTOW
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/m2mj2d/uhh/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MGTOW/uhh.768121 https://theredarchive.com/post/768121

Comments