“Wow Johnson, no matter how much biased data we feed this thing it just keeps repeating biases from human society.”
Sample input from a systematically racist society (the entire world), get systematically racist output.
No shit. Fix society or “tune” your model, whatever that entails…
Obviously only one of these is feasible from a developer perspective.
Someone wasn’t prepared.
Anyone wanna play Tanaris at The Station?
Yes, similar to the web of trust, there exists a web of trust for people based on reputation. Journalistic integrity, openness, scrutiny; these are just a few of the things that go away when experts go away.
People who dedicate their lives to truth should be recognized as such, and those who lie should be recognized as well. Outsourcing your information gathering to “randoms” just means that you will be swayed by whoever can afford the best bot farm.
And if you think you are unswayable, you are the perfect target.
Follow those who express curiosity, welcome questioning, and conduct themselves in good faith. It’s an iterative process, you don’t have to resolve it in a day.
Another one bites the dust.
I admit it, I once assumed Elon was a genius.
(events happen)
Okay, not a genius, but a good businessman.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad businessman, a good PR person.
(events happen)
Okay, a bad PR person, but not a Nazi.
(events happen)
Well fuck, he’s a Nazi supporting conspiracy theorist.
God damn, if I was that wrong about one person. I’m just gonna stop having opinions about famous people. It’s all smoke and mirrors.
Good idea, thank you for the tips on how to disable it. Nothing more annoying than someone offhandedly mentioning something I should do and providing no details or elaboration.
Okay, maybe that was harsh, but really, not even an app name or… literally anything?
As long as the jackass doesn’t sell, they’re solid.
I had a roommate who invested, when his stuff went down more than 5% he’d sell it, “Don’t wanna be too risky,” he’d say, unaware that he was breaking the cardinal rule of investing…
Then, “Omg it’s up again, I better buy high before it goes higher!” then repeat pattern A again.
Moral of the story, if you actually believe in a stock, unrealized losses are not something to react to. Or do, and become a warning tale told to others, ha. Them -5% hits add up QUICK.
However if you put it on the outside of the bucket nothing changes at all and this comment is a pointless thief of your time and attention. Sorry.
We’ve all done it, I’m sorry if my joke wasn’t apparent as well. Text is dumb.
And no sense of humor over what was clearly a joke comment. Icing on the cake.
Now I believe you now, you do use Nano.
Prefers Nano over Vim? Why’d you have to go and commit a felony. Now I can’t take anything you say seriously. Damnit.
It always irked me because I dislike Russell and like Hamilton, but Hamilton always seems to take Russell in the race whether it be strategy, luck, or chance, idk. Now I just feel satisfied seeing Russell throw away his qualifying gains during the race…
It’s interesting that a “level-headed” comment is one in which bringing up the murder of a US president’s rival is not an unexpected topic.
If that is the new threshold for level-headed then this world has gone insane.
Random guess, it grants some sort of overreaching privilege to some agencies and they are clinging onto that overreaching power?
Anyone got a real answer?
Ahh, you have skinitis, be glad it’s not boneitis.
True, and it upsets me because we can’t even get a baseline agreement from the masses to correct systemic inequality.
…yet, simultaneously we’re investing academic effort into correcting symptoms spawned by the problem (that many believe doesn’t exist).
To put this another way. Imagine you’re a car mechanic, someone brings you a 1980s vehicle, you diagnose that it is low on oil, and in response the customer says, “Oil isn’t real.” That’s an impasse, conversation not found, user too dumb to continue.
I suppose to wrap up my whole message in one closing statement : people who deny systematic inequality are braindead and for whatever reason, they were on my mind while reading this article.
I’ll be curious what they find out about removing these biases, how do we even define a racist-less model? We have nothing to compare it to… another tangent, nope, I’m done. Zz.