A.I ‘Gaydar’ Could Be the Start of Something Much Worse
theverge.com
theverge.com
edit: Of course, I think this technology is horrifying and that a) it will never be 100% accurate, and b) it is just begging to be abused. I just don't think denying the reality of its existence will be a good way to fight against its misuse. Pandora's box has been opened.
Which of course will lead to exactly what it predicts.
And we all know HR departments would gladly use stuff like this. Especially for the jobs where it would matter most: underpaid entry-level jobs that a lot of people get as either a last resort or a first job.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-...
There's no question that the next 20-30 years will be overflowing with cans of worms.
The next step after early (fetus or embryo stage) diagnosing of X thing, is that we're going to soon have the genetic alteration power to do something about it courtesy of CRISPR. It seems practically guaranteed that authoritarian societies will begin forcing parents to alter their unborn children to eliminate all sorts of attributes that are considered undesirable by whatever regime is in power.
We have the ability to adapt by simulating nature in our minds, and science too comes from this - but we are the result of so much time and such harsh filtering. In other words, I don't think we will see as much interest ten years into it after as we would during the first year.. we would only, in such little time, pick the low-hanging fruit changes. But these are also the ones nature has not propagated - which would be odd if they are both simplest to achieve (including my accidental mutation) and also known to be beneficial on average.
I'd imagine hypothetically that the first wave of children would start exhibiting genetic illnesses will drive down the willingness to sign children up, out of simple precaution that parents are unlikely to have ever seen evidence that the procedure does not have a risk of ruining the child's life.
To me, the worrying outcome is that it is feasible. Before you know it, SAT tests are replaced by photos.
Of course I can think of good applications, such as scanning for terrorists by identifying abnormal signs of stress.
That said, I can imagine a AI-driven screening mechanism that was rooted in a causal relationship to data, instead of random nonsense.
The panic is being manufactured, probably for little more than grant money, recognition, and clicks.
If it actually works, it's not pseudoscience, it's just science. (Assuming you don't understate the variance in generated intelligence/sexuality/whatever distributions.)
"I can't believe you're still seeing John! You know he's gay, right? I tested his profile picture - it came back 98%!"
The whole point of the LGBTQ movement was to let people decide for themselves what they are, not to label them based off what society says they ought to be.
The potential for ostracism is just too great.
Overconfidence doesn't change the probabilities of the rare, harmful events that they are predicting won't happen. But their bias against self-doubt does increase their willingness to bet against unprecedented events.. n=1001 safe observations (where E[payoff] > 0) cannot predict that the next will be catastrophic (E[payoff] = -inf, or at least absolute value >> O(N*E[payoff seen up till then])) with non-zero probability beforehand; the expected payoff would appear vastly different before the event than after. The bets they choose will reflect the way they underestimate the consequences of speculation.
Evidence of absence > absence of evidence, another way to put that is the weight of ¬valid(test) >> the weight of ¬¬valid(test), so we should not decide the test is invalid just because it's not yet invalidated.
My gut feeling is that the upper-bound of proven benefit (to individuals/society) of the test (even if ~99.99% accurate) << upper-bound of the harm (intentionally or not) - because 'invalidity' isn't a question of whether a test is always non-satisfiable, the burden of proof falls upon the one introducing it, rather than the one rejecting it.
So why can't they use that experience to make the same point against a AI bot labeler. Too much of a leap?
Individuals absolutely have to be free to determine who they are, and that means that society can only judge their determinations, not they themselves.
I will set aside my quibbles with the rest of of the package for another day, and simply extend you kudos for a well thought-out post.
If this isn't sarcasm/irony, what's your evidence for this conspiracy?
(Edit: Why is this comment downvoted? Is it frowned upon to ask for evidence for a conspiracy theory?)
Fully understand that priors != evidence. Which is why I'll state it's my belief, not ground truth.
The standard version of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory states that the Frankfurt School, a group of European intellectuals, hatched a plot to bring down Western civilisation. If you believe this is the case, I have two questions:
- What works of the Frankfurt School have you read, and which do you think are congruent with what you are accusing them of?
- Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?
If you think this is not the case, then tell me who exactly "cultural Marxists" are, their origins, and what basis you have for your accusations. These are very basic questions which you should not have to reference another book to answer, though you can of course provide a reference to one as part of your answer.
>Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?
>Oh, you don't toe the PC line? You must be a rayciswhitemale.
You're self-parodic at this point.
Apparently not being an anti-semite is being "PC"?
Have you ever considered that, oh I don't know, maybe it's just that people would like to live their lives in peace, the way they want, fucking whomever they want without bothering anyone else or being bothered in return? What on earth possesses you to attribute this to some sinister decades long underground plot?
This reminds me of a movie called The Final Cut by Robin Williams. Its where everyone has an implant for recording everything and you get a face tattoo to bypass it. In this case you would get a face tattoo that would intentionally misclassify you as whatever orientation that you want.
"Automated Inference on Criminality using Face Images"
Confirmed some of my long-held biases about physiognomy though, so I didn't dismiss it outright.
Meaning the author really doesn't understand the concept of unbalanced classes
[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(book)
Holsters are not always worn in the lower extremities, either. I'm not sure this would be all that successful. It seems quite difficult.
What can i say?
Why would your success as a human have anything to do with whether or not an algorithm could have success in any field?