TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Even AI knows more than some people

sezar4321

October 24, 2018
891 upvotes
/r/PussyPassDenied
https://i.redd.it/k5w1eo2sq4u11.jpg
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Even AI knows more than some people
Author

sezar4321

Upvotes 891
Comments 115
Date October 24, 2018 12:48 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/9qzc19/even_ai_knows_more_than_some_people/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/even-ai-knows-more-than-some-people.891309
https://theredarchive.com/post/891309
Top posts by sezar4321

abuse is abuse, dont be gross

9998 upvotes
March 2, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Her face says it all. Guy defends himself

5291 upvotes
March 19, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Don't prank strangers

1850 upvotes
October 31, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

refuses to move the purse, cops make her get up instead

1045 upvotes
March 3, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

Thief uses pepper spray store owners are not impressed

948 upvotes
November 2, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

lady freaks out when no one wants to bend over backwards for her

774 upvotes
February 12, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

equal rights and equal lefts

456 upvotes
February 20, 2019
/r/PussyPassDenied

What a shitshow!

334 upvotes
October 6, 2018
/r/PussyPassDenied

Comments

[–]InBreadDough 117 points118 points119 points 7 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

Wasn’t this amazon?

[–]brofesor 92 points93 points94 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

I don't see why a different AI couldn't reach the same logical conclusion.

[–]GlipGlop69 61 points62 points63 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

The only way an AI wouldn't reach this conclusion is if it had restrictions intentionally placed on its logic processes. Funny thing is, you also have to do that to yourself to buy into progressive ideology.

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Neural nets are by definition not programmed. You literally create a set of neurons that have no knowledge of the world or anything and then feed them data.

Where the flaw may have come is that the data may have been biased. AI logic is really unquestionable given adequate data.

[–]MasterDex 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, you're mistaken. Neural Nets are most definitely programmed. Without a base to start from, they can't do anything so there needs to be some sort of programming to start with. How else do you think they make their decisions. NNs work on a try-fail basis. They try to accomplish the task they're programmed for. If they succeed, they're added to the pool of 'good' NNs and those good NNs are used to create the next generation. And this continues until as close to 100% success is achieved.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]fmanly 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My understanding is that with a NN you need to select an appropriate input set, and ALSO select an appropriate scoring algorithm.

If you don't incorporate something into the scoring, then the NN isn't going to optimize for it.

Let's take something less controversial. Suppose you want to hire the best workers for the post office. You don't tell the NN to take location into account. The NN might very well pick 500 applicants that all live in NYC, which is a problem if you want to hire somebody to work in an office in Kansas. If you want to pick people across a diverse set of locations, then you need to incorporate this into the scoring. Then the NN might come up with a clever way to satisfy this criteria that you didn't outright program into it.

[–]MasterDex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I too am a qualified software engineer that has worked with NNs so yeah, you're mistaken - or you're grossly over simplifying NNs because if you are telling the truth about your experience then we both know that your statement about NN not having any programming 'by definition' is false.

And your second paragraph is just nonsense pulled from thin air. Where did I imply any of that?

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MasterDex 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We're software engineers! Semantics are important! XD

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]MasterDex 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

That you referred to the behavior of evolutionary algorithms when you described NNs is what tells me you're armchairing.

Claims to work in the industry with NNs. Makes a false claim/oversimplification about NNs. Claims the person that called them out is armchairing. And never heard of Neuroevolution.

Yep. I'm the one armchairing here.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]PoopPraetor 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why must it be a flaw? What if the data and its conclusions are representative?

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was trying to be nice while remaining factual. The distinction is irrelevant from a strictly rational perspective.

​

[–]InBreadDough 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It realistically was most likely a flaw. Most soldiers have been historically men, and most current soldiers are men. It’s most likely found a pattern that the best soldiers are typically men, without understanding that more men would mean more of the best soldiers are men.

[–]Whimpy13 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Boolean VS Fuzzy Logic

[–]Zudane 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Umm.. you know AI reaches conclusions without restrictions intentionally placed?

If only 10% of the military is women, it stands reasonable for a computer to determine that 90% should be men. Therefore to match criteria with majority of military personnel it determines that male is significantly better. Just like if we had data showing driving cars are safer than trucks and had AI determine a safe car model then it would show that cars are safer, even if the cause of the trucks being less safe is due to something completely unrelated.

AI just follows the data to find a conclusion, and since majority of military personnel are male I can certainly see how AI would follow that trend.

[–]Ducman69 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If only 10% of the military is women, it stands reasonable for a computer to determine that 90% should be men.

Why? That's not how the algorithms work. You're confusing the AI they are using as some complex thinking machine that is bound to become self-aware at any moment.

All its doing is capturing and scoring various criteria as it was programmed to do, and if its really advanced then possibly looking at the track record of the most successful candidates and washouts down the road and trying to match their qualifications/resumes with new ones coming in.

If it can't even see gender, as is not likely a data input, its just looking for those that score best on the criteria it measures. If that result happens to be that it sees that men are performing better on their PT tests and are otherwise equal or slightly greater in all other areas, it would result in an imbalance in result of most qualified applicants.

[–]GlipGlop69 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right. What I'm saying is you have to intentionally place a restriction on the AI's ability to recognize a pattern for specific areas the same way progressives literally turn off their ability to recognize patterns in order to adopt the ideology faithfully.

[–]InBreadDough 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I didn’t say it couldn’t, I was pointing out that this already happened recently.

Though the timing does seem suspicious.

[–]Kill_Meh_Please 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, but this might also be the case

[–]foreverwasted 87 points88 points89 points 7 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

This was Amazon.

"Amazon Reportedly Killed an AI Recruitment System Because It Couldn't Stop the Tool from Discriminating Against Women"

"According to Reuters’ sources, Amazon’s system taught itself to downgrade resumes with the word “women’s” in them, and to assign lower scores to graduates of two women-only colleges. Meanwhile, it decided that words such as “executed” and “captured,” which are apparently deployed more often in the resumes of male engineers, suggested the candidate should be ranked more highly.

The team tried to stop the system from taking such factors into account, but ultimately decided that it was impossible to stop it from finding new ways to discriminate against female candidates."

Source

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Interesting that an AI who's process is designed to find qualified candidates would, without any bias, determine this was a suitable way to do so.

I'm willing to hypothesize that women's studies degrees proved to be a strong indicator.

Curious if it had any similar biases against asshole misogynists as it did against asshole misandrists.

[–]Cryhavok101 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Curious if it had any similar biases against asshole misogynists as it did against asshole misandrists.

That probably depends on whether or not misandry or misogyny affected the completion of tasks it was recruiting for.

It likely didn't take human feelings into account much at all would be my guess.

[–]Okichah 10 points11 points12 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

without any bias

Yeah thats not true.

Any statistical system will have a bias. Maybe not a gender or social bias, but a mathematical one.

Statistics are prone to a number of biases; survivorship bias, either/or bias, tyranny of majority. A lot of these “AI” systems are just statistic aggregators and not really intelligent.

[–]WARNING_Username2Lon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It wasn’t unbiased it took into account previously hired employees. Which where predominantly men.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That wouldn't necessarily skew results unless your backprop was rewarded on the basis of matching current employees instead of basing it on some reasonably thought out metric.

It's quite reasonable though that Amazon did fall for a Paperclip Maximizer, and failed to define their goals adequately.

[–]SinisterMJ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

An AI today is always a neural network, and that means to train it, it has some sort of loss function. Unless you make that loss function "More men means higher score", it won't use sexism to make a choice, but rather some valid training, like "Quality of work". And if it then notes a correlation between Women's studies and Quality of work, then it is "sexist".

[–]WARNING_Username2Lon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. They trained to recognize previous hiring patterns. That just so happens to include a favoritism towards men. The employees accidentally programmed bias into it

[–]SinisterMJ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But that makes no sense. If 20% of resumes included the term "Women's chess club", and 20% of hires were women, it wouldn't discrimate.

[–]WARNING_Username2Lon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Discrimination is judging someone based solely on a certain trait. In you example it’s not discrimination. But is that what happened?

The AI was discounting women simply because they ARE women. Then that’s unacceptable

[–]SinisterMJ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Really? Unfortunately Amazon won't open the input data they used for training, but I am thinking of an Australian study where resumes had been completely stripped of anything pointing to genders, and subsequently a lot more males were hired. Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason a network would discriminate?

[–]WARNING_Username2Lon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If there’s a reason I don’t believe it’s really discrimination at that point. It’s simply hiring the best person for the job.

There was an article though about Amazons AI and then said they stopped it for 2 reason

  1. Hiring based on previous hiring patterns

2.an over reliance on buzzwords.

[–]MjrLeeStoned 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Bad verbiage in this article. It wasn't something that it "taught itself".

Someone had to teach it the difference between a "good" resume and a "bad" resume, otherwise how would it know how to flag one as such?

The problem was that the majority of resumes flagged as "good" or which leaned more toward the positive on whatever scale the algorithm used were male resumes.

If the category for 50+% of the degree major on "good" resumes is "Business" and your resume's degree major is not Business, your resume automatically gets a downvote, in Reddit terms.

It's about numbers, not prejudicial biases.

[–]Fatensonge 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And it highlights the actual problem with equality and even fixing the so called “wage gap”. We’ve had centuries to create and polish metrics that favor men. It’s so ingrained that we don’t actually know how to create a more egalitarian metric yet. Even worse, every attempt has led to something like this.

There’s a big push to get more women in STEM fields, but it’s not really working. We don’t know if it’s because men in STEM fields are that misogynist, if gender roles subtly nudge women away from STEM fields, if women are inherently different in some way that makes STEM not attractive, or some combination thereof. Because STEM has so long been the province of men, we don’t even know where to start.

It’s gets harder to manage when feminist groups keep insisting that anything showing women aren’t exactly equal to men in all areas is misogynist. It has a chilling effect on the conversations that need to happen to figure the problem out and fix it.

Women and men are inherently genetically different. Not just physically, but mentally and emotionally. Saying anything different is actually transphobic. And anti-science as we’ve actually proven that men’s and women’s brains simply operate differently.

If we could quantify the differences, we could easily improve society by more efficiently targeting specific jobs to specific people. Even if we assume that being trans isn’t a real thing and even with obvious physical differences, the members of a specific gender aren’t homogenous carbon copies.

Amazon’s metric wasn’t eliminating women. That suggests that we need to determine what it was giving preference to and why it was discriminating against certain things to better refine it.

At some point we’re going to have to admit that there are things that men are better at and other things that women are better at and those things might line up with traditional gender roles and that’s okay. And that’s going to be the actually difficult part.

[–]maplehobo 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Spot on

[–]Arbiterjim 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the funniest thing I've ever read

[–][deleted] 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ketzacut 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Why the fuck are you writing womyn and not women??

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ketzacut 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Í think you might be missing a /s at the end of that rolf.

[–]Arbiterjim -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's the funniest thing I've ever read

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Psalm_143 15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Vive la difference!

[–]AngryPup 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Get out of here with your science and logic!

[–][deleted] 24 points25 points26 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It bugs me that this is called "discriminating". If you're looking for someone to do a job, gender and race should not be a criteria that matters. Pick the person who the best suited for the fucking job, period.

[–]Cryhavok101 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

People vilify the word discrimination, but in reality, picking a new hire is 100% discrimination. You have to weed out all the people you don't think are good enough to do the job you want. Then you have to find a reason to pick one person over everyone who can do that job. It may not be gender based discrimination, or race based, but it is ALL discrimination.

Turns out Amazon has a lot of jobs that take physical labor. Turns out statistically and averagely, men are more likely to do well at physical labor than women. Unless they are feeding that AI data on the physical fitness of the applicants, it may have simply been going off of those statistics.

Even if it was fed physical fitness data, it may have considered "Well these people could do this job, but these others could do it better."

And if it was looking at maximizing the value the company got from it's paid labor, then it might have also factored in statistical data predictions on who was more likely to miss work vs those more likely to show up, and the possibility of becoming pregnant and missing work goes against women on that front, because AI's don't have morals, and don't care how anyone feels, it just solves the problem presented.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fucking well said.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But that would be too easy

[–]Chake1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The AI (for Amazon) was being discriminatory because it was rating lower for the sole reason of gender. In the best situation, it would be completely absent in the rating of a person, bit instead was rating higher words that were mostly present in male's resumes and lower words like "women" and female's resumes.

I'm all for having the AI pick the best person, but it wasn't doing that, it was filtering out women because they're women.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

That can't be entirely true if the higher rated words are relevant though

[–]Chake1 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was words like "captured" and "executed" which were primarily used by males. Those aren't relevant to the job at all.

[–]Janders2124 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

it was filtering out women because they're women.

No it wasn't.

[–]Chake1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It was filtering out people who had words like "women's" and scored lower two people from women only colleges how is that NOT blatant sexism?

[–]Janders2124 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because statistically speaking people that had that word in their resume or people who were from those colleges didn't make very good candidates. It's a computer, it doesn't have any capability of being sexist.

[–]Chake1 -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the data it's pulling from is past hirings, which is very capable of being sexist.

[–]MisterSlosh 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The female fitness standard is lower than the male fitness standard, so the game was rigged from the start.

Apart from a few certifications there's not much else you could use to test for "combat readiness".

[–]2Salmon4U 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's what makes me most mad about "gender equality". If you want it to be equal, then make it equal. There are absolutely women who could pass the male fitness standard. They should have never lowered it to boost female numbers. The women who failed should have trained harder, it's just that simple!

Sorry, I kinda hijacked your comment to rant

[–]GlipGlop69 47 points48 points49 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Who would've thought that the sex that is physically stronger, more durable, more violent, and doesn't carry it's young inside it's body rendering it in need of care for 9 months is better suited for combat.

[–]Santi_2004 29 points30 points31 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A totally biased, sexist and patriarcal AI

[–]Spinothalamic 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You took the words right out of my mouth.

[–]EasternEuropeSlave 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

get outtahere with your misogynyst hate speech autistic screeching

[–]galacticschralper 9 points10 points11 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We’re never gonna get Master Chief... 😒

[–]Bobthecow775 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What the fuck is this shit

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

AI was right, just not politically correct.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Honestly you have to have some kind of death wish or homicidal tendencies if you are actively looking for a combat position. Seriously, think about it. Women in the military are fine, obviously. But why do some want to fight to be in combat positions? Why are you not okay with that being a men-only profession? You can serve your country in a lot more ways then going out and shooting people. I just don't understand it.

[–]Delita_Wasnt_Wrong 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s simple. Feminism has made these women smell their own farts for decades and think it’s roses. They’ve been told women are just as strong as men and can do anything a man can.

So they look at a combat infantry role and say “I can do that, I’m strong and independent! I watched my boyfriend play call of duty, I got this”. And then when a real firefight happens, bullets (real ones) are flying from real enemies who want to kill you and aren’t going to wait for you to aim....then they start to panic and shit their pants, and go hide behind the nearest vehicle or large male soldier. This is basically what happened to Jessica Lynch in Iraq when the military vehicle she was driving got involved in a firefight. She panicked, tried to get away instead of fighting and crashed the vehicle, getting her taken prisoner.

And if a female combat soldier gets injured, instinctively 2-3 men will risk their lives to rescue her per their biological imperative. Now you’re risking the loss of triple the soldiers possibly all because of diversity and female empowerment through equal outcomes instead of opportunities.

Women should not be in front line combat roles, end of story. Women want the status and bragging rights to say they’re in the infantry but when the shit hits the fan they are useless. Paper tigers.

[–]maplehobo -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I for one think it's great, they should get mandatory draft (is that the term? Not native english speaker) get a little equality going on. You want to get to the glass ceiling? Well you better also start pulling the weight men have been pulling all this time.

[–]skepticalDragon 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

This is dumb, women are more than capable of handling non-infantry roles. And the vast majority of the US military is not infantry.

[–]xcommon 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're more likely to be non deployable, more likely to be out of physical standards, even though they have lower standards. A pregnancy causes you to lose them for almost two years. They cost more money for both uniforms and medical expenses.

Im not saying we shouldn't have women, we should. But logistically, we should plan to lose a higher percentage of due to non deployability.

[–]prattalmighty 7 points8 points9 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It does say it was searching for "combat personnel".

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Good point, if that is the same as infantry then I stand corrected.

[–]Janders2124 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wtf else do you think it means?

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean a fighter pilot would be a combat role and women can do that just fine, have been for a while 🤷🏼‍♀️

[–]ZombiePeanuts 13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. And where the hell is the pussy pass attempt here anyway? This just seems like straight up sexism.

[–]satanismyhomeboy -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What sub do you think you're in

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Until shtf you mean.

[–]Simmion -4 points-3 points-2 points 7 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

Everyone in the military is infantry first, other jobs second.

downvotes dont make me wrong.

[–]skepticalDragon 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Absolutely not true. Maybe you mean the Marine Corps?

[–]Simmion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

its absolutely true. because when it comes down to it you are the last line of defense if shit really hits the fan.

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lol I'm sure all the nerds in the Air Force stationed in Montana will hold up great against... Invading Canadians?

My point is there are a shit ton of non combat roles in the military, and women can do those very well.

But as someone else pointed out the image says "combat personnel" so I failed at reading.

[–]sofa_king_gr8_0 points 7 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

What happens when your FOB starts taking rounds and you start being overran?

We are in the military. We fight. If you cannot fight, you need to leave.

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

What FOB is an Air Force logistics officer going to serve in? The infantry is not the military.

[–]sofa_king_gr8_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In what other organizations will you find the infantry?

Everyone has supply and you still need to have a war fighting mentality. Supply or no. Commissioning or enlisted.

Question though, are you guys called an “S shop?” Like in the Navy S-1 is supply, S-2 are the cooks, S-3 is the ships store, and S-4 I think is disbursing.

But in the Marines S-1 is admin and I think S-4 is supply.

So if I tell a Sailor I’m going to go down to S-1, they’ll think the supply office, but if I say the same to a Marine he’ll think I’m taking care of Admin stuff.

[–]skepticalDragon 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The infantry is not the military... It is maybe 15% of the military. Women can perform just fine in the remaining 85% of the roles.

[–]sofa_king_gr8_ 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Never said they couldn’t.

No matter what their job is, a domineering and war fighting spirit and mentality are paramount.

Besides the infantry IS the military. If your job involves killing others that’s the military. Everything else is support. No other organization has the infantry. You can do as many air strikes as you want but you will never win until you send in..... the logistics officers and personnel specialists? No? Oh wait you mean we send in the cooks right? No? Admin? Oh jeez. What occupational specialty could only be found in the military and is the only one used for land wars... im stumped. Maybe you could help me brainstorm “sir?”

The infantry IS the military, but the military isn’t necessarily the infantry.

[–]skepticalDragon 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Depends what your definition of is is 😁

[–]sofa_king_gr8_ 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, that gave me a chuckle. Upvote for you my good sir.

[–]FlexibleToast 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

Not a chance pal. No way am I infantry first being a system administrator in the Air Force. Hell, only touched a firearm 3 times in 8 years of service. You're thinking of the Marines only, were every Marine is a rifleman.

Edit: Lots of armchair military people in here. Here's a hint, if shit hits the fan hard enough to where I need to have a rifle, we've already lost. Most of the military is a supply chain. Wars are won with logistics.

[–]MisterSlosh 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Non-enlisted will never understand anything more then the Hollywood images and the Facebook memes. The job comes first, you just happen to know how to shoot and have access to serious hardware.

You're absolutely correct.

[–]FlexibleToast 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's so funny the people who obviously envy the military and pretend to be a part of it too. This type of chest beating doesn't really happen among my peers. Like you said, they know the movies and not how things really are.

[–]Simmion -3 points-2 points-1 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Guess what happens when the shit hits the fan and there's no system to administer because your base is overrun? You would probably wish you knew how to use an m4 about then.

[–]Cryhavok101 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He probably would... but that doesn't make your opinion on how it should be into actual military doctrine.

I was army, and we were taught we were infantry and our MoS, and I know marines are taught similarly.... but I highly doubt the navy or air force follows that doctrine, not having any infantry MoSs in their branch to begin with. My dad was air force, and I know for sure that while he was still in, they certainly didn't follow that idea.

[–]Lawbringer_UK -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure that would apply to any situation where armed men storm your office.

But of course when no M4s are delivered because all the systems administrators were on the firing range they'll probably wish they'd been focussing on what their actual job is instead.

[–]Simmion 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

But of course when no M4s are delivered because all the systems administrators were on the firing range they'll probably wish they'd been focussing on what their actual job is instead.

you've clearly never been in the military.

[–]Lawbringer_UK -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, I have not. But the people who were telling you that you're wrong are.

Also, it doesn't take an expert to tell you that if the base is overrun and it's down to a few systems administrators with carbine rifles then the situation is already lost.

[–]Simmion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I spent 12 years in the army. I think i understand how it works fairly well.

then the situation is already lost.

oh, you're french.

[–]Lawbringer_UK 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I spent 12 years in the army

Good for you, if true. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong, as displayed by all the military personnel on this thread disagreeing with you.

oh, you're french.

So clever! Because presumably no soldier from whatever country you're from has ever surrendered when clearly outmanned and outgunned?

Nobody is impressed by internet posturing or insults and wilful ignorance of anything that occurred outside of your '12 years in the army'

[–]Simmion -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So clever! Because presumably no soldier from whatever country you're from has ever surrendered when clearly outmanned and outgunned?

You should do some research on the US army medal of honor recipients.

[–]FireLordHashi 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Science is transphobic and technology is sexist. Case closed.

[–]sexybloodclot 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Can someone ELI5 here please

[–]FreqRL 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The real article is about a bot amazon used, but that doesn't matter as much.

​

The gist is that the bot used its internal algorithms to check resumes and scores them, and somehow it turns out that by its reasoning, women's resumes are apparently objectively less appealing then men's. Its funny because this has probably got a lot to do with the male population as a group often being more suited for technical jobs, and it used that as its basis for discriminating against women. Its obviously not true that each individual male is better suited by default, but that's just not how (most) bots work.

[–]Cryhavok101 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of amazon jobs are physical rather than technical. It may have simply been sorting for physical suitability for hard labor, rather than technical expertise.

Though I haven't actually looked at the real data, that's just my conjecture on what might cause it to do this and still make sense somehow.

Now, obviously there are women who can handle hard labor just fine, but an AI is gonna look at statistics and averages and determine what is most likely to be beneficial to it's goals. I wonder if it would change anything if it was fed physical fitness info on the applicants.

[–]Lord_Pyrak 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Amazon made an "AI" to sift through new hire applications. They trained it with old resumes and it filtered against women, even with the same or better credentials.

Obviously broken AI that needs some work, nothing new except this one wasn't being funny when it fucked up.

Then some incels took that as gospel from the almighty machine learning gods.

[–][deleted] 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sofa_king_gr8_5 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes it’s fake, no it’s not sexist. It’s factual. Look up the average testosterone levels in adult males vs females.

Then look up the side effects and results of testosterone.

Then with that knowledge go forth and know the sexes are different and that’s ok.

[–]DarkBloodHound00 points 7 years ago [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

Sexes are different and that's ok and men indeed have more testosterone. So why can't women be in the military? Is testosterone needed to hold a gun?

I'm not calling the AI sexist, it's just badly made. The sexists are the people in the comments claiming women can't be in the military.

"Women have more estrogen therefore men can't be musicians"

Makes no sense.

[–]Janders2124 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is saying women can't be in the military they're just saying a lot more males are capable to do the job than women. Doesn't mean there's zero women who are capable.

[–]tmoneSpends too much time with ass cheeks spread apart 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The sexists are the people in the comments claiming women can't be in the military.

holy fucking shit. these are the people calling this sub sexist. Those who are fucking too stupid to form an accurate opinion.

Listen fuckface, this meme isn't suggesting that women aren't to serve in the mil. there is a difference between the military and combat positions.

[–]sofa_king_gr8_1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I haven’t seen any comment about women being banned from the military. We are talking about combat roles. Which is a big part, but not the only part. “Bullets don’t fly without supply.” “You will die without supply.” And whatever other lame ass sayings those box kickers tell themselves.

Testosterone is not needed to hold a gun, but it helps you carry all of your water, your food, your change of socks so your feet don’t rot, your spare ammunition, your gun, your body armor, and you’re a Corpsman/Medic so you’re also carrying medical gear. Or you’re a radio operator so who’s carrying the radio with a long as hell antenna whipping around in the wind? You are. For miles. Machine gunners have their rifle but they trade off carrying spare ammo, spare barrels, or the weapon system itself, as well as their rifle and ammo. Mortar-men do the same but with their heavy as hell mortar system.

It easily adds up to over 100 lbs. I weigh 215, but when I’m wearing my “combat load” I weigh around 260. But if I’m packed for extended ops I end up weighing around 310-ish.

If I get shot do you know what happens my brothers and sisters on patrol with me are now tasked with saving my life and carrying me to safety if I cannot walk.

I’m a Hospital Corpsman, I’ve put 260 lbs on my shoulders before(in addition to my med-bag and body armor.) it absolutely sucks. It’s miserable. Every step is a monumental challenge on flat ground. Except we are training in Djibouti and if I don’t carry him back to the “PB” who will?

I always told my guys, look I’m slow as fuck. But I’ll carry you. We both will make it out or we both won’t. Just hold on till I get there. It’s gonna be a minute.

Combat, patrols, hikes, ranges, all miserable. All carrying a lot of weight. Adding 100 lbs to my 215 body isn’t all that bad. Little under half? The pack is 4 feet tall, I’m over 6. Not that bad. But what if I was 5’5 and weighed 115? I’d be damn near carrying my own body weight.....and THEN someone screams out “doc man down!” Honestly, how effective do you think I’d be? From personal experience, from objective facts, and from common sense. The hypothetical small me would be utterly ineffective.

Also estrogen doesn’t correlate to musical ability. Non-sequiter.

[–]Bot_Metric 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

4.0 feet ≈ 1.2 metres 1 foot ≈ 0.3m

100.0 lbs ≈ 45.4 kilograms 1 pound ≈ 0.45kg

I'm a bot. Downvote to remove.


| Info | PM | Stats | Opt-out | v.4.4.6 |

[–]dreamerxyz 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

stop blaming the (so called?) AI for the shitty algorithm and training data.

[–]stockgordan1981 -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/amazon-built-ai-to-hire-people-discriminated-against-women-2018-10

I don’t know why they lied and said military. The true story is just as good.

[–]amp-is-watching-you 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Direct link: http://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-built-ai-to-hire-people-discriminated-against-women-2018-10


I'm a bot - Why? - Ignore me - Source code

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter