myspicename t1_iu20n0k wrote
Reply to comment by RonPMexico in Facebook Segments Ads by Race and Age Based on Photos | Ads with teenage girls are mostly directed at men over 55, while white people see fewer ads with Black faces, a new study finds. by chrisdh79
This is like when politicians carve up districts based on other factors to proxy race. The model is definitionally racist if it continues to fuel racial segregation.
RonPMexico t1_iu21nq4 wrote
Politicians are optimizing for political affiliation and use race as a proxy for that. I am saying that is the exact opposite of what ought to be allowed.
myspicename t1_iu24bff wrote
Racism is ok if you find a proxy. Got it.
RonPMexico t1_iu25qoq wrote
Have you considered the opposite case? Using the real estate example. You have x number of variables including salary, school district, visiting real estate websites, and so on. Each on of those variables is given a weight by the system. We don't know what those weights are, the systems operates in a "black box" to determine the appropriate values. You look at the results and decide native Americans are under represented. now you have to add native American as a variable and in order to get the results you want you have to decide how much that should impact the final results. So who decides to favor native Americans by how much? Would that not be illegal under the fair housing act?
myspicename t1_iu27918 wrote
If companies ever backchecked their algos for mistakes or systematic bias, I might not be against it.
RonPMexico t1_iu27fim wrote
I don't know what that sentence means
myspicename t1_iu27s7l wrote
Is the concept of machine learning making a racist assumption and enforcing racism alien to you? It's pretty widely discussed.
RonPMexico t1_iu28ega wrote
I know. Thats what we are discussing. You take the view if an algorithm returns results that are not directly proportional to racial demographics the system is racist. I'm saying that is ridiculous.
What doesn't convey meaning is:
If companies ever backchecked their algos for mistakes or systematic bias, I might not be against it.
myspicename t1_iu28ibd wrote
Did I say directly proportional? Stop strawmanning my argument.
RonPMexico t1_iu28p2s wrote
How far from proportional would be okay and after that it's racist?
myspicename t1_iu296ce wrote
Clearly there's no strict line. Just like a white passing black person crossing the color line in Jim Crow, racist systems aren't absolute.
I'd say if there's a vastly disproportionate discrepancy it's worth checking. And I'd say if it's around things like housing, or education (rather than say, hair care items) it's more salient.
RonPMexico t1_iu29jmi wrote
How about this? We remove race from the equation entirely. Surely that would lead to the best outcome no?
myspicename t1_iu2a7pt wrote
Absolutely not and I think it's fairly obvious it wouldn't. This was tried for education and housing and because of historical inequity and cultural in group bias of systems for a majority it doesn't work.
Even workplace or academic institutions that just have policies that appeal to white majorities can enforce that. It's trivial, but even not having say, vegetarian or halal items can be a blocker, and it's "race blind" to be fine not having it.
RonPMexico t1_iu2axl8 wrote
So you are saying they can't be race neutral and you can't define when it's racist. Who gets to decide where to draw these arbitrary lines? How would they work with optimized systems? What is fair enough?
myspicename t1_iu2b900 wrote
This is why we have laws around this. Let me guess, you think markets correct all inequities?
RonPMexico t1_iu2cfec wrote
I'm saying when you artificially favor one race over another in an otherwise race neutral algorithm to give your desired results it's a bad thing. You believe race should factor into everything. And you have the temerity to claim the moral high ground. Racism is bad and you ought to be ashamed of your views.
[deleted] t1_iu2d74x wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments