This PC thing that keeps blaming White Men for everything is hilarious.
Maybe there are not data sets made by woman cause woman don't take their time to contribute to them? But of course that's men fault... white men fault as usual.
Why with the thin skin ? This particular problem isn't about "men's fault", it's primarily about bias.
To make a very blunt argument: If you were to write an AI to reason about menstruation, and let a group of women train it then you would get a particularity different outcome than if a group of only men did it.
This argument extends to many other topics on different levels of subtlety.
... there are of course complex reasons why "women don't take their time to contribute", and to just dismiss that as "This PC thing" is a little short-sighted.
You refer to actually running the training phase of machine learning algorithms? You think if you are a woman you get a different result if you run a Linux command?
Sure, why not? Using "You're just like HITLER!" always seems like a sound argument.
> I'm just surprised to see extremist talk like that on HN.
Except you are the extremist here. If your take-away from me saying that women and men have different experiences about life on this planet is that it's just like what HITLER! said, your argument lacks nuance.
He said it was hilarious, not that he was offended. Therefore, your claim that he somehow has "thin skin" is completely baseless. Also, he didn't say that the "PC thing" was causing women to not contribute. No. He said that it's the reason white men get blamed for it.
Anyway, yes - Women and men would train an AI differently. To the point that things become "closed-minded, inside-the-box, not-very-good" though? That's what the article claims...right here:
> "From a machine learning perspective, if you don't think about gender inclusiveness, then oftentimes the inferences that get made are biased towards the majority group—in this case, affluent white males,"..."If un-diverse stuff goes in, then closed-minded, inside-the-box, not-very-good results come out,"
(Sounds pretty bitter. Combined with the "sea of dudes" label, I think we can forgive anyone that laughs at this lady without resorting to name-calling.) But where's the actual evidence for this? Because I don't believe it at all. Men can have a feminine side and through empathy can absolutely think like women. There are men who believe they should have been women...and we all start out as females.
(EDIT: Lastly, that you practically responded to every negative opinion here makes it seem like you are thin skinned.)
There is a bias in AI systems that stems from them being written almost mostly by (white) men.
That just pointing this out, yields this knee-jerk reaction yours is very sad.
There is a an opportunity here to make a global society where computers can serve all of humanity in specific needs of everyone instead of just their creators. Let's not squander it.
I would be more sympathetic to your point of view, if I wasn't almost certain that many reactions in the vein of "this is so sexist against men" would be the exact same if she had used "There are almost only men" instead of "sea of dudes"
Well, then woman should start taking their time - mostly free time like the people who normally do it (which you claim is just men) do - to contribute to write those systems as well instead of just complaining they don't fell represented in the outcome.
It is easier to complain, than it is to write code and find training data to use.
I find it funny that feminists and SJWs who find something wrong in IT, don't want to do their own version of it and would rather complain about it on social networks and blogs instead.
It is like they look for problems, but never solutions. That is why there is a sea of dudes, instead of complaining the sea of dudes look for solutions to the problems.
So the people who created the field are nothing more than "a sea of dudes". What an ignorant and sexist viewpoint. Bloomberg and Microsoft should be ashamed.
We need to stop being ok with racism and sexism against anyone. White males included.
And as part of that fight against racism and sexism we need to make sure that the AI's we create aren't biased from being created and trained mostly by one particular subset, the referenced "sea of dudes", because that's a pretty good way to perpetuate racism and sexism by our software.
I don't see what's so hard about that. And really, as a dude, to be offended because she said "sea of dudes" to mean that the field, which will probably impact the global society in a huge way, is dominated by men, and not as you imply diminish their contribution, is pretty thin skinned.
Except there is no sexism or racism against white men (which I am assuming you mean, please correct me if I am wrong) to be found in this article.
Sexism or racism are societally useful concepts if you include the power dynamics. Without them all that's left is that someone wasn't very nice to you, which really as a grown up you should be able to deal with.
The power dynamic here is that the software of future is created by a majority of white men, who, overall, were the first and last group who were and remain globally in charge.
So to say "uff so many men!" in an office 75% full of white men, is completely different than saying "uff so many black women!" in that same office. Not necessarily because of the numerical, but because of the powerbalance.
To point that out, does in no way mean that each individual man in that office is a terribly racist sexist! It just means that there are biases in the whole setup.
In the same vein it's not "sexist or racist to use the data provided by the participants",but if you're not careful and you let the biases in your reading of the data, that were shaped by your experience as a human on this planet, affect the way your AI is trained (and it's almost impossible to be unbiased in that sense), then the outcome of what you're trying to do might well be.
You would never think to say "uff so many right-handed people!" because being right-handed doesn't makes you pre-judge them as flawed and less capable.
How about you start with not assuming everyone who disagrees with you is male. Then not call grown men "boys". It's super offensive and doesn't help the point you're trying to make.
moving my brilliant comment from dup thread: Really gets to the nature of what we mean by the term "intellgence". It's _gender_ specific. A lot of times in AI you'll hear people talk about a no gender robot thinking for itself. But we have no examples of genderless intellegent humans. intellgence implies gender.
and there was a great reply too: "Intelligence is the ability to extract meaning from a mass of input -- but yeah, what makes it meaningful? By definition, it has to be meaningful to a person in some way.
While everyone wants good medical data and scientific breakthroughs...yeah, it seems like sooner or later you're going to reach a question which men and women view differently." how can I just move this thread over here?
31 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 77.8 ms ] threadNow it is true they trend male. Particularly true if they are not white.
Maybe there are not data sets made by woman cause woman don't take their time to contribute to them? But of course that's men fault... white men fault as usual.
To make a very blunt argument: If you were to write an AI to reason about menstruation, and let a group of women train it then you would get a particularity different outcome than if a group of only men did it.
This argument extends to many other topics on different levels of subtlety.
... there are of course complex reasons why "women don't take their time to contribute", and to just dismiss that as "This PC thing" is a little short-sighted.
You refer to actually running the training phase of machine learning algorithms? You think if you are a woman you get a different result if you run a Linux command?
> "I do absolutely believe that gender has an effect on the types of questions that we ask,"
but I am a bit at loss, if you thought...
> You think if you are a woman you get a different result if you run a Linux command?
...I was actually this stupid why bother replying at all ?
Hitler used to talk a lot about "Jewish physics" vs "Aryan physics" as if there's a difference.
I'm just surprised to see extremist talk like that on HN.
> I'm just surprised to see extremist talk like that on HN.
Except you are the extremist here. If your take-away from me saying that women and men have different experiences about life on this planet is that it's just like what HITLER! said, your argument lacks nuance.
Anyway, yes - Women and men would train an AI differently. To the point that things become "closed-minded, inside-the-box, not-very-good" though? That's what the article claims...right here:
> "From a machine learning perspective, if you don't think about gender inclusiveness, then oftentimes the inferences that get made are biased towards the majority group—in this case, affluent white males,"..."If un-diverse stuff goes in, then closed-minded, inside-the-box, not-very-good results come out,"
(Sounds pretty bitter. Combined with the "sea of dudes" label, I think we can forgive anyone that laughs at this lady without resorting to name-calling.) But where's the actual evidence for this? Because I don't believe it at all. Men can have a feminine side and through empathy can absolutely think like women. There are men who believe they should have been women...and we all start out as females.
(EDIT: Lastly, that you practically responded to every negative opinion here makes it seem like you are thin skinned.)
That just pointing this out, yields this knee-jerk reaction yours is very sad.
There is a an opportunity here to make a global society where computers can serve all of humanity in specific needs of everyone instead of just their creators. Let's not squander it.
Swap that out with anything else and you can immediately see the problem. How does "Fashion has a sea of chicks problem" sound?
They're trying to be edgy. It's not like they said it's a sausage fest.
I find it funny that feminists and SJWs who find something wrong in IT, don't want to do their own version of it and would rather complain about it on social networks and blogs instead.
It is like they look for problems, but never solutions. That is why there is a sea of dudes, instead of complaining the sea of dudes look for solutions to the problems.
We need to stop being ok with racism and sexism against anyone. White males included.
I don't see what's so hard about that. And really, as a dude, to be offended because she said "sea of dudes" to mean that the field, which will probably impact the global society in a huge way, is dominated by men, and not as you imply diminish their contribution, is pretty thin skinned.
Sexism or racism are societally useful concepts if you include the power dynamics. Without them all that's left is that someone wasn't very nice to you, which really as a grown up you should be able to deal with.
The power dynamic here is that the software of future is created by a majority of white men, who, overall, were the first and last group who were and remain globally in charge.
So to say "uff so many men!" in an office 75% full of white men, is completely different than saying "uff so many black women!" in that same office. Not necessarily because of the numerical, but because of the powerbalance.
To point that out, does in no way mean that each individual man in that office is a terribly racist sexist! It just means that there are biases in the whole setup.
In the same vein it's not "sexist or racist to use the data provided by the participants",but if you're not careful and you let the biases in your reading of the data, that were shaped by your experience as a human on this planet, affect the way your AI is trained (and it's almost impossible to be unbiased in that sense), then the outcome of what you're trying to do might well be.
There's nothing prejudicial about noting a deficiency or proposing a more fully rounded environment.
I hadn't even noticed, probably because I'm not looking