Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re: huh (Score -1, Troll) 196 196

Exactly - a meritocracy would be great, if it existed. But instead it's a bunch of relatively well-off white guys looking around at their buddies, saying "Yep! We sure are all the best, that's why it's just people like me here. If a group is underrepresented, it's definitely because they're bad at tech - this is a meritocracy, after all!"

It's a self-perpetuating feel-good lie.

Comment: Re:alogrithms aren't racist (Score 3, Insightful) 352 352

But the people writing the algorithm and choosing the input data *can* be racist. And even in the absence of malice, you can create racist outcomes.

If your training set has many photos of white people and few photos of black people, it's not going to be great at recognizing black people. If it doesn't know what black people look like, it's bound to misclassify them more often than white people.

Anecdotally, I noticed that the Microsoft "how old are you" site a while back recognized me (a white person) in every picture, but only detected my (black) partner in about a third of the pictures I fed it. In one instance, in a screenshot of a video chat, it recognized my little 100x100 picture in the bottom right, but failed to detect my partner's face in the center.

Your real-world performance can only be as good as your test/training data.

Comment: Re:URLs (Score 3, Informative) 272 272

They didn't get the channel. They just got the shorthand URL - still goes to his channel, he still has all his followers, etc. This is just redirection of the shorthand URL to Lush Cosmetic's channel.

Probably their algorithm, like most of Google's stuff, is based on usage - they saw that people frequently visited /lush/; then went to the channel for Lush Cosmetics afterwards.

I'm still waiting for the advent of the computer science groupie.