So.... it worked?

Internet-Fair · 2021-03-11T04:47:21+00:00

The same thing famously happened in an experiment run in the Australian civil service-

They carried out a massive test of removing men and women’s names from applications.

They found that the male candidate was overwhelmingly preferred.

So they had to embarrassingly scrap the policy

edit- here is the famous study: https://behaviouraleconomics.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/projects/unconscious-bias.pdf

And the summary- “What we found is that de-identifying applications at the shortlisting stage of recruitment does not appear to assist in promoting diversity in hiring. In fact, in the trial we found that overall, APS officers generally discriminated in favour of female and minority candidates. This suggests that the APS has been successful to some degree in efforts to promote awareness and support for diversity among senior staff. It also means that introducing de-identification of applications in such a context may have the unintended consequence of decreasing the number of female and minority candidates shortlisted for senior APS positions, setting back efforts to promote more diversity at the senior management levels in the public service.”

Saltyfox99 · 2021-03-11T05:22:15+00:00

This reminds me of blind auditions being brought in for orchestras to eliminate racial discrimination, followed by people calling them racist and wanting them gone because the resulting orchestras didn't have enough minorities in it

emforay216 · 2021-03-11T01:14:16+00:00

I feel like there's been so many AI tools like this shut down for this reasoning. Why don't they blacklist wrongthink or something? Or notallowedlist or whatever tf dumbasses wanted to call it.

SleepDeprivedUserUK · 2021-03-11T11:37:00+00:00

"discrimination" isn't always a bad thing.

Would it be discrimination to hire a 6ft tall well built strong bloke as a fireman, over a 5ft tall never-exercised woman with a fear of heights?

BiochemistryGenius · 2021-03-11T00:38:51+00:00

Omfg that’s monstrous, take my silver NOW

NothingLikeAGoodSit · 2021-03-11T02:38:15+00:00

This is a good example of the importance of striking a balance between equality of opportunity and allowing people to persue their interests.

If people persue their interests, more men will end up in technical roles because the people who like things (Vs people) are mostly (but not exclusively) men. So we must allow a gender imbalance of outcomes and not try to force parity firstly because it won't work and secondly because it discriminates against men. Same reason we don't force 50% of nurses to be male.

However this AI read the historical OUTCOME pattern and applied that to OPPORTUNITY which was bad programming, and yes, discriminatory, shutting out potential women who were high performers just because they didn't fit the outcome trend. Yes, it actually marked down females for being female.

Right from the start the applications being fed into the AI should have had gender, race and any other irrelevant attribute stripped out so it was purely based on ability and experience. That would provide something closer to equality of opportunity. Yet even if that was done we should fully expect more men to make it through simply because more men are interested in the field.

2021-03-11T05:58:36+00:00

If it picked women more, it'd be still up and running and feminists would do all they can to force other companies to use it because there is evident.

Aibhne_Dubhghaill · 2021-03-11T13:23:59+00:00

At what point do you acknowledge that it's not discrimination, it's just actually how reality is...

RaginJake379 · 2021-03-11T12:25:43+00:00

This seems like an excellent example of the Turing Test. We should be afraid.

xai7126 · 2021-03-11T09:38:59+00:00

Gotta love when we counter science with emotion... Why not study why and adjust accordingly

Frequentbadideas · 2021-03-10T23:11:59+00:00

As hilarious as this is it's not a pussy pass denied

DimitriT · 2021-03-11T11:43:36+00:00

Isn't that discriminates against men if women get preferential treatment?

brobot_5000 · 2021-03-26T04:55:11+00:00

so now computers which are built from the ground up on logic are being discriminitive for providing intelligent and factual results?

SadLoser14 · 2021-03-11T12:02:05+00:00

was it actually discriminatong or did the women just happen to not fit the job?

Benedikto_ · 2021-03-11T16:21:16+00:00

65% of government employees in Quebec are women. Just throwing that out there.

daniel_j_saint · 2021-03-11T00:11:59+00:00

Anybody who knows anything about AI knows that this showed a flaw in their algorithm, not in the women. AI are not nearly as objective as you think.

mementh · 2021-03-11T03:21:26+00:00

This feels like the bad data on face recognition with POC and how taking photos of POC has always been troublesome since the things are setup for white skin etc.

Bad input data = bad output data

Velocifaper · 2021-03-11T12:25:57+00:00

I wonder what they’re doing with Tay AI

Enslaved_M0isture · 2021-03-11T17:08:36+00:00

wow, a non biased smart AI is un biased and gets shut down for it

RunOverRioters · 2021-03-12T06:25:25+00:00

Even Skynet knows the pay gap is bullshit.

ksaph0520 · 2021-03-11T03:21:54+00:00

So...yall do realize the definition of "discriminate" is to judge someone because they're different. Meaning if you took a man and a woman with equal experiences, the man would be treated better on the sole principle that he's got a dick between is legs.....If an AI is discriminating, then the choices were being made because she's female.

My proof: I looked into the claim. The AI was downgrading resumes with the word 'woman/women" in it. Female resumes who weren't a part of some women's chess club or graduated from an all woman's uni were graded just as fairly as the men's resumes. But the ones who had woman anyway in their resume were downgraded and not considered for their accomplishments.

This circle jerk is getting old, just like you

cloudranger31 · 2021-03-11T12:44:38+00:00

Damn so we really reached a point in civilization where our ideals and social bullshit stunts our development.

victoriaa- · 2021-03-13T15:27:57+00:00

This isn’t a woman being entitled and denied, this is just straight up sexism.

DustyBunny42 · 2021-03-13T21:31:43+00:00

Would be so ironic if a team of women made the AI.

CataclystCloud · 2021-03-15T18:20:04+00:00

Post in question?

NightThese · 2021-03-16T00:07:07+00:00

i really don’t get why this has so many likes. me and the other girl that works at the machine shop we work at do just as good as job as the guys do. i outwork the guy who works besides me all time

Finch343 · 2021-03-16T13:16:58+00:00

The problem is that if you give an AI a dataset that overwhelmingly favored men over women, this AI will see men a favorable based on the data it got. It didn't pick the best candidates, it picked the candidates that fit the pattern the most.

Journalist_Actual · 2021-03-17T11:26:44+00:00

AI doesn't give a shit about diversity quotas

Russian_Terminator · 2021-03-17T12:25:09+00:00

How can AI discriminate, it is a robot

Roundaboutsix · 2021-03-20T19:29:13+00:00

There was a firehouse promotion test given in a town near me a few years ago designed to provide women and minorities a path to a management position. The only people who passed the test were white males, so they declared the test faulty, promoted none of the folks passing the test and promoted flunkeys with the desired physical attributes and gender specific equipment instead. Needless to say, law suits followed.

OneDankMemeLord · 2021-03-20T19:46:41+00:00

Based AI

ksaph0520 · 2021-03-11T05:00:15+00:00

Okay listen, I'm not gonna keep arguing with everyone so...yeah.

I didn't speak up on here and say something to be a fighter for women's rights. I'm not arguing with a bunch of old-time minded folks to try and change their views and opinions. I really don't give a fuck what you think of me or women, not a single fuck. Hate us for all I care.

I literally JUST want to see women who actually DESERVE being denied, without all the stupid sexist bullshit. I just want to see the sub be what it was actually made to be, not some dirty basement where men feel validated because a fucking robot hates the word woman.

You hate me, cool. I've been called every possible insult you could imagine, you're insults and degrading comments mean absolutely nothing.

I Just wanna fucking laugh too dammit and I don't think there's another sub like this and really don't want to make one.

Jesus fuck leave your pride at the door and laugh at the women getting what they deserve with me.

Sugarpeas · 2021-03-11T05:17:28+00:00

In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.”

I fail to see how this is a "got em". Neither of these terms should have been flagged as a bad thing. How would "woman's chess club captain," indicate a poor candidate? It obviously doesn't. I wonder how they were training the AI that this was one of the emergent clusterings? It sounds like the training material had a bias.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

By the way, depending on how many variables you feed an AI system, you can't really tell what the internal logic is past a certain point and if the interpretations are making sense. This just sounds like HR figured out how to feed an AI algorithm without really understanding how to properly input data and interpret the outputs.

CantStopMe888 · 2021-03-11T09:53:37+00:00

so the actual title should be " Amazon built an AI tool to hire people but had to shut it down because it didn't give preferential treatment to women"

barley_soup · 2021-03-11T03:46:48+00:00

I'm curious as to which jobs it was hiring for.

murdok03 · 2021-03-11T07:52:21+00:00

I knowthe articles around this specific example and basically it was built-in bias from the training data.

They fed it the previous year's worth of resumes and the ai noticed women get hired at a ratio of 20% so it followed the same pattern with new resumes as well.

Problem is they removed gender, and it did the same for names, then they removed names and it discriminated against specific resumes that went to a women's only school, and I have to say at this point the school might be shit not the AI.

Lesson of the day, thing of what correlations you wa t from a neural network, and feed-it diversified balanced representative data when training.

faithle55 · 2021-03-11T09:11:05+00:00

Typically these types of AI tools are initially loaded with data from the last ten years or so of decisions taken by human beings.

That's how the bias gets into the AI. It compares current candidates with previous positions and inadvertently applies the same biases.

Umbran_scale · 2021-03-11T11:46:28+00:00

Be even funnier if the AI was designed as a woman

death_ray_mx · 2021-03-11T20:58:57+00:00

Surprise surprise

NiceButOdd · 2021-03-12T21:46:34+00:00

Ffs where is the PPD?

Frommerman · 2021-03-11T06:32:41+00:00

Y'all are fucking idiots, so let me explain.

AIs don't come from nowhere. Programs like this must be trained on a dataset, because they're too complicated for humans to program now. The datasets used to make them are absolutely massive, and the training takes emormous amounts of processing power, but the result is a simpler set of heuristics you can run on a smaller machine.

The problem with this process is if you put garbage data in, you get a garbage program. In this instance, they trained it on Amazon hiring data and told it to mimic what they did, but better. Problem is, Amazon HR departments are bigoted against women just in general, not because women are actually worse at the jobs they are hiring for, but because most every corporate HR department is. So the AI noticed women were being selected less often in the dataset, assumed this was what we wanted, and stopped chosing to hire women altogether. The AI became a bigotry machine because it was trained on bigoted data.

The same thing has happened with race as well. A large company trained up an AI like this and it just threw out every non-white applicant without reading anything else in their application. They developed a super efficient racism machine because the dataset was somewhat, but not perfectly, racist, and the machine assumed we wanted to optimize for racism.

This is why using AI for these kinds of things is a horrible idea right now. These mistakes were easy to catch, but what if there's some subtler problem with the dataset which you don't catch in the output program? Maybe it notices that your company hires proportionally fewer people with Qs in their names, and just chooses to never hire anyone with a Q. Maybe you hire few people whose resumes come in on a Monday, and every accepted applicant from then forward applied on a Friday. Maybe it notices that only idiots become VPs, and it only promotes idiots from then on out. It could do any of these things if your dataset is biased for any of them, and you might not notice until your company is hit with an entirely justified class action.

2021-03-11T06:45:24+00:00

Ah yes, meritocracy is sexist

AesarPhreaking · 2021-03-11T08:14:51+00:00

So they shut it down for not discriminating against men?

toufikofcourse · 2021-03-11T04:18:36+00:00

Bezos is the biggest soycuck of the planet.

mamirim · 2021-03-11T05:16:24+00:00

I guess it had nothing to do with how the AI was written or by who! It's funny how much of our biases into our work and products. AI is not pure math (without any consciousness). AI is the reflection of its author's perception of his/her reality. And as such carries a boatload of biases.

Cybernetic_Phantom · 2021-03-11T05:32:11+00:00

Ohh no! Anyway...

ArthurHaroldKaneJnr · 2021-03-11T01:39:48+00:00

I wasn't aware that AI was so advanced.

Moxdonalds · 2021-03-11T05:05:35+00:00

“The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do.”

Ted Nelson

-Jamega · 2021-03-11T06:38:08+00:00

This sub has turned more into just blatant sexism rather than people actually getting karma and happening to be women. And as soon as you try to acknowledge that, an onslaught of miserable, self-pitying losers attack you. It's disappointing to say the least.

Dnile1000BC · 2021-03-11T05:14:46+00:00

It doesn't need to be AI. Blind auditions for musical positions (judged by humans) also results in a "bias" towards men. Whenever there's an objectivie criteria for job without reference to gender, invariably, it always seen as a bias towards men.

This is why feminists tries to hard to destroy the concept of merit and objectivity. They just can't succeed in that enivroment.

Hypeguy35 · 2021-03-11T06:32:57+00:00

Whatever happened to good old fashioned meritocracy?

HanjiZoe03 · 2021-03-11T07:24:57+00:00

When the Artifical Intelligence has more common sense then humans

FallenITD · 2021-03-11T11:40:38+00:00

Well can’t argue with an AI. It just chooses the most logical and useful answer to the request.

Azuzu88 · 2021-03-11T12:29:45+00:00

I saw a similar trial to this conducted elsewhere with the same result. It turned out that even without names and genders added the AI was able to basically determine gender from the content of the resumes. They had trained the AIs using resumes from previous successful candidates, most of which were men. So when the AI assessed new resumes it looked for ones similar to what had been successful before and thus largely picked men every time.

GiantYeetForMankind · 2021-03-11T12:36:20+00:00

The AI was trained on past applicants who'd been hired or rejected by humans, so any human bias was learned as well.

Slutz317 · 2021-03-11T12:37:31+00:00

For context, the basis of the AI found that men were significantly more likely to be programmers or computer engineers since it's always been a male dominated field. At that point, one of its criteria became screening for male applicants.

Stories_in_the_Stars · 2021-03-11T07:46:21+00:00

This post and comment section has an overwhelming "its true because the AI said so", so I want to set this straight. I work in the field and this is not how this works. The problem in this post was that historically there was a big bias towards men in the Amazon hiring policy. Now you can remove gender as a variable for your model, but because so many other variables are heavily correlated it doesn't remove the gender information from your dataset. You can still use variables X and Y to predict Gender confidently. So in the end the model still used gender as one of the most important features. The baseline should be that gender does not matter, only skills and qualifications. And that didn't hold up here. Next you can argue that this is still a beter solution than the regular vetting process, but this comment section is an example of why that would be bad. Too much credibility is assigned because the term "AI" is used.

Onecoinbob · 2021-03-11T06:24:11+00:00

Actually hiring was already discriminatory and it learned it that way. Happens every time.

Also fuck this post you weak asshole.

Edit: to clarify ai uses the data it is given, and then learns. If the data shows that women with the same qualifications as men do not get the job, it learns that that is better. In reality it shows how systemic discrimination is every single time.

Nightwingvyse · 2021-03-11T08:03:07+00:00

Ah, that oppressive, racist, sexist patriarchal tyranny known as............ meritocracy.......

LokeYourLord · 2021-03-11T03:04:28+00:00

I love it when meritocracy is the way to go. It's how it should be almost everywhere.

Akshay-Gupta · 2021-03-11T06:43:46+00:00

Op, can u link the original post, I love spicy discussions

breakingbadisgoat · 2021-03-11T07:00:43+00:00

AI didn't get the memo.

plutoniclama · 2021-03-11T07:01:42+00:00

As in women aren’t people?

Shaun221120 · 2021-03-11T07:36:34+00:00

I_like_buns · 2021-03-11T08:31:06+00:00

Bruh

N3cromant · 2021-03-11T08:54:29+00:00

AI can't fall for vaginas or dicks, if AI's would manage the workplace, then bye bye inequality

Uncle_Drugobert · 2021-03-11T09:06:47+00:00

What was the job? Picking up heavy stuffs?

scantaxx · 2021-03-11T11:00:26+00:00

Theres a ted talk about this and it explain why the ai ISNT discriminating

chookity_juice · 2021-03-11T11:05:29+00:00

I think this sub is going a little far. How long did that AI last for? If it was only for about a few weeks, fair fair, but women can still be good at jobs.

yoursolace · 2021-03-11T11:06:44+00:00

I mean... You all know how ai works right? It's not trying to decide who is best, it's trying to decide who would have been picked by the folks that do the hiring as best

AI works by getting fed data, trying to look for the patterns, making up rules about the data and patterns, and then making predictions based off of them

So generally it's fed data that was generated by people (so, after looking at all the past applications and who wound up getting hired, it can predict someone named Ralph is probably not going to get hired, probably, because the past several Ralphs sucked!)

Of course, whoever is setting up the model has to be careful about what bits of data they feed in, but if it's fed biased data it's going to be biased, (hopefully things like name and gender are left out, but other things in the data may be indicators that the ai picks up on and uses in its decision)

It's also important to note that most ai decisions are kind of a black box

Since I didn't look into anything about this case at all or how they trained the models, I can't really make a stance on what happened here, but it is absolutely real that ai will be biased when models are trained on data that contains a bias

It's also important to note that, say for example it only looks at past job titles, it will think good titles are good, makes sense, but the title someone has at their past job may be due to a bias of someone at the past job... So it's possible for bias to still play a role, even if not baked into the ai itself

CrazyPurpleFuck · 2021-03-11T17:35:38+00:00

This is friggin hilarious and I’m a real female. 😂

formerly_matt · 2021-03-11T19:05:37+00:00

Don't know if anyone here has actually worked for Amazon but I can assure you that the majority of jobs in your average fulfillment center don't require much heavy lifting and the majority of the physical labor is repetitive action with your arms and long hours on your feet. Working at Amazon is very much about mental strength and willingness to put up with shit hours and shit rules. So tbh I don't see where men would have a real advantage outside of very specific jobs. Speaking from personal experience.

Cheddarsamurai05 · 2021-03-12T15:02:35+00:00

Bruh this is just misogyny at this point

Thirdeyewanderer · 2021-03-14T04:00:53+00:00

So much ignorance on this sub. AI are susceptible to bias if they’re fed the wrong training data or if parameters aren’t weighted correctly. This is why they’re dropping AI proctors for virtual tests.

Mythandros · 2021-03-10T23:46:28+00:00

[permanently deleted]

Lucky_tnerb · 2021-03-11T06:10:45+00:00

Why is this on this subreddit?

RedMask69 · 2021-03-11T05:44:52+00:00

It's ironic how in the sub description it reads "Yay equality!" but you guys are just celebrating discrimination, this post has nothing to do with a denied pussy pass.

imakefilms · 2021-03-11T07:22:16+00:00

Is this subreddit just straight up misogyny or what? Like seriously. Why did I ever follow this sub.

2021-03-11T02:40:04+00:00

Women are good at some jobs, most just don’t have the balls for jobs that keep the modern world going

MasonTaylor22 · 2021-03-11T05:57:01+00:00

Cancel AI

OcelotLovesSnake420 · 2021-03-11T09:02:35+00:00

This sub gets a little more 'mask off' every day.

CyberProAssassin · 2021-03-11T13:23:48+00:00

Not sure if anyone would want to work for Amazon anyway.

SPACECAT223 · 2021-03-10T23:08:00+00:00

This has nothing to do with this sub.

ViciousDextroShade · 2021-03-11T03:09:27+00:00

I imagine that any sentient machine would have to be red pill.

Maoceff · 2021-03-10T23:01:13+00:00

Is this sub about entitled women getting shut down, or just a bunch of fat lonely virgins that hate women, posting this kind of shit?

a-bespectacled-alien · 2021-03-11T08:40:30+00:00

This has to be the most Incel-ish post I’ve seen on here. What do you mean So it worked?

steinchen43 · 2021-03-11T11:39:38+00:00

Okay why don’t y’all calm the fuck down for a moment and actually read the article. An AI doesn’t just spit out “the best” resumes. That’s not how AI works

Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry. (Reuters

Spreading false information and blind hate against everything that has anything to do with women isn’t what this sub should be about

0Rohan2 · 2021-03-11T04:58:39+00:00

BASED A.I

JadonDorolo · 2021-03-11T06:50:59+00:00

“Discriminated” you mean there happened to be a higher ratio of men than women

SneerfulSpore96 · 2021-03-11T07:20:07+00:00

This subreddit used to be a place where women are trying to use the fact that they have a vagina to achieve something and getting denied and now you have stuff like this being posted.

ksaph0520 · 2021-03-11T07:46:08+00:00

Two sides here: One argues in favor of making a woman's chance at getting a position with equal accomplishments more difficult than males. Making it easier for the males to be chosen.

The other: Argues in favor of the individuals accomishments being considered instead of a stereotype they have no control over for an equal opportunity.

Now which option is hurting people and which is advocating equality?

makibii · 2021-03-11T10:53:48+00:00

Surely they can create insert a code that could set s max. Number of males and female based on the overall total of applicants, right?

Let’s say of the total applicant is 100, the AI could determine that there should be 50/50 male/female ratio.

Get the best 50 from each gender.

If there are more male applicants than female, wait for additional resumes.

If there are more female, proceed because diversity or they could simply go the option of implementing a line like

if (applicant=male) {

applicant.rejected

}

Qwubvz · 2021-03-12T14:26:01+00:00

Well it’s their fault. If they hire more men than women in the first place, the AI would obviously keep doing that, possibly even more.

roflrocket · 2021-03-11T07:26:54+00:00

I miss when this sub was girls being punished for fake rape claims and not this biased sexist garbage

Thebesj · 2021-03-11T08:19:32+00:00

No, that’s not what happened at all. «Trash in trash out» is a saying when it comes to AI, meaning that AI will act with bias learned from humans - and amplify it 10x. I wrote an academic paper on this very issue. It’s complex, but long story short the AI was complete trash and this isn’t a ‘wamen rekt’ moment.

OG_walrus · 2021-03-11T10:45:00+00:00

Guys, this was a defect in the system. It made other mistakes too.

Sensitive_Elevator_5 · 2021-03-12T20:31:59+00:00

So due to the fact that the program downgraded “women’s colleges” or “women’s chess clubs” - that makes men superior? Lmao...

Remember women make better leaders before we start trying to banish women back into the kitchen.

And if you hate women using Onlyfans- stop watching so much porn. You all make yourselves miserable with that shit and then blame us for it. Not a good look...

RunikVarze · 2021-04-04T00:23:16+00:00

Somebody post that hulk meme. "I see this as an absolute win!" That one!

Wireless_cables · 2021-04-05T14:04:37+00:00

On a similar but not exactly related note, it might be worth mentioning how some of these AI's are taught, or rather the reference material they use.

99% Invisible do an interesting podcast on the Enron emails and the ways they are used in the development of AI, Siri, spam filters and predictive text. I obviously don't think it's the AI or the developers that intend to create bias but the source material does come from a male dominated workplace in a time where certain types of misogynistic behaviour and language was more commonplace and so it's perhaps not that surprising when there is a bias.

Now of course I'm not saying that this is what's happening in the example in the post here, but I think it is a fair assumption that we run the risk of carrying over these biases (justly or unjustly present) into areas that should not have a bias. Using the Enron emails to teach AI means that the AI is learning from the people working there and their interactions. If there's a gender/race/class bias already existing and the majority of emails from male coworkers to female subordinates are less formal in language choice, the AI learns that and copies it and vice versa.

I know on this sub it can be a bit of a hot topic to discuss feminism so if we use a different bias it still holds true. The AI doesn't have a prejudice unless it is shown one and told to copy it. I'm not saying all the staff were misogynistic/racist/classist but if enough of them are then this will be reflected in what the AI learns.

You could probably unintentionally teach it to dislike apple pie if enough of the emails discussed hating apple pie.

I am open to discussion though and I am aware this is very much my own opinion that I've backed up with a podcast and blog as sources. I'm not trying to claim this is the absolute truth and I'd love to hear some opposing opinions.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/youve-got-enron-mail/

https://qz.com/work/1546565/the-emails-that-brought-down-enron-still-shape-our-daily-lives/

EDIT:

So I decided to look into the Amazon example and it actually does have a lot in common to the Enron examples. They discussed that the AI had been trained using the CV's they received and rated over the last 10 years, and that the majority of those CV's were from men and were rated by men. It would discredit the word "Women's" in "Women's chess club" and negatively valued two all women colleges (they don't specify which colleges so this may just be because they're shitty colleges, I'm UK based so not too sure). Amazon went on to edit it but they refuse to discuss it further and stopped using it so it may be that it wasn't the only cause.

It really seems like the major problem is that the information used to train AI needs to be from a neutral source and clear of any bias and whether or not that even exists isn't exactly clear to me.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

Darth-Kcinimod · 2021-03-11T06:07:09+00:00

it's because AI learns to take on human biases.

edit:

there have been lots of examples of AI taking av human biases. AI learn from what we give them, which means the side effect of giving them biases.

Ill admit that I haven't read the article I just looked at the meme like everyone else - and I'm thinking it makes more sense that the AI took on a bias than women being worse

I'm in this sub because I like justice and equality, but it's moments like these that make me think member of this sub just don't like women on want to see them suffer

edit 2:

the article from the image vvv

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

it was a biased because of the data it was given, and because engineers tried but failed to combat this.

It's also clear that "So.... it worked?" is no the right takeaway, because (in the article) it says that the AI also spit out unqualified people.

so hmm.

If the AI had a biased sample,

the team failed to remedy this,

and it fails to achieve the task,

It's clearly that:

- The AI didn't work.

and not that

- The AI did work, however women are worse than men.

I encourage you to read the article.

Title	So.... it worked?
Author	BackAlleyKittens
Upvotes	13972
Comments	464
Date	March 10, 2021 10:55 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PussyPassDenied
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/pussypassdenied/comments/m2be0i/so_it_worked/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PussyPassDenied/so-it-worked.1066398 https://theredarchive.com/post/1066398

Comments

BASED A.I