The technical sense of "bias" arises when the train and test distributions differ. Obviously if you train with a dataset of text from a foreign country's news and then apply it on an American context, the difference in the data distributions will introduce bias, but why do we need a social twist to this already well-functioning term? If the same classifier is trained and evaluated in India (with its sexist roles, say), then there's no (technical) bias and I don't see why it's a bad application.
No, because eventually your system will graduate from predicting the results of society's bias to reinforcing society's bias. That is a bad thing.
It seems to me to be a stupid thing to do. This person seems more likely to get convicted again, lock 'em up longer. Instead of asking why is this person more likely to get convicted again? Can we prevent this in a redemptive non punitive way?
It's really useful to have that prediction/data but how you use it is more important
worse is that since the prediction is coming from computer that lends the prediction an air of authority another article called "bias laundering". the general belief is that computers are objective and cannot have bias, which in a sense is true, but people don't tend to think a step further about the problems and biases in the people who programmed the computer.
so that is definitely a thing usually missing from these discussions is that the people using these systems generally don't know how they work, and believe they predict or imply things that they don't
It's just the reality of how the justice system works. We have trust in the approximation of justice that the judiciary provides and constantly struggle to improve that judiciary.
It seems an effective tool, if you want to change thinking then police the way words can be used around the topic. It is however worrying that machines could start playing a role in this. It could become a powerful tool in steering public opinion. This doesn't seem too bad, but that could be used to favour an incumbent political party, or more than likely to sell products we otherwise don't really want.
But you are right machines need accuracy and removing that bias could be detrimental to the task they're solving.
I'm trying to say some people think they have a good enough reason to throw away accuracy if that means they can change a societal bias. But that can only be a good thing if you agree with the change being made.
Personally, I see more danger in people trying to make machines that evangelize their own biases to the world than machines being molded by the existing social assumptions of society, given that we expect machines to perform most of the work/control most of the resources in the future.
Machine Learning creates models that reflect the data, not the truth.
Women are more likely to be pushed or encouraged to take this important supportive role to benefit others while putting themselves at risk.
In fact I'd say the housekeeping skills are always more marketable, more basic and easier to master - you can live off them, but not without. This gives rise to competition which drives both social perception of value and actual financial value down.
Mutual dependency has been the way of life for ages - for good reason.
Edit: Thought police strikes again! Instead of downvoting, please provide a coherent argument why a given point is invalid or how.
You would be surprised how big a bag "homemaking" is, ranging from cooking, through teaching, down to clerical work, through basic finances and back up with handyman (yes yes) fixes. Any of those skills specialized in is marketable, though not respectable on its own.
Note how few of them are true knowledge and research work.
All of them are in the areas where there have been major reductions in number of jobs due to automation and centralization.
The often unspoken assumption is that stereotypes are strictly bad and evil. Without stereotypes, all the social conduct just breaks down and explodes - people suddenly become unpredictable.
However, stereotypes (including SJW stereotype) can cause big frictions between groups. Even more so when they're actually inaccurate, invalid or misapplied.
Another thing is something called "stereotype threat" which reinforces certain behaviors while punishing other - a kind of self fulfilling prophecy at times. You think you would behave as if some label would be applied to you therefore you behave to fit in. The drive to fit in is human, social and often subconscious.
If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks?
> If your partner started to abuse you, would you rather be the homemaker or the person whose name is on the paychecks?
In that circumstance, I'd rather be a woman. While it's very difficult to find anything resembling an unbiased source, it seems apparent that it is substantially more difficult for a man to seek law enforcement intervention as a victim of domestic abuse.
Isn't that in large part because of the employment and income disparities between men and women, though? If women are employed less often and generally make less when they do, it makes sense that they're more often the recipient of alimony.
> In that circumstance, I'd rather be a woman. While it's very difficult to find anything resembling an unbiased source, it seems apparent that it is substantially more difficult for a man to seek law enforcement intervention as a victim of domestic abuse.
My comment was actually only regarding homemaking vs. computer programming, not how those occupations are gendered. The parent said "How does it pay less? You get to have a place to live, eat, sleep, all for free" — all I meant was that if there's e.g. domestic abuse, all else being equal, it's far better to be the partner who actually makes money than the partner who relies on the other's income.
The way to not be afraid of abuse it's to have a support network. For example, extended family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, etc. This applies to you whether you're an employee or a homemaker.
As a human you are always dependant on other people. Part of being a responsible adult is figuring out how to cooperate with people.
Your support network is significantly more flexible if you have access to money. You haven't (and I suspect can't) made any real argument that there's not a vast power imbalance in a relationship where one party makes the most or all of the money.
There's no reason "homemaker" should be inferior to "computer programmer", but there's also no reason that homemaker should be "feminine". Men are equally capable of taking care of the house, and women are equally capable of programming computers.
Women get pregnant; men don't. Women have to nurse children (as in breast feed), men don't. When a woman it's pregnant or nursing, she needs support. That's the whole reason why there is such a thing as marriage. Because you can't raise children on your own.
Absolutely none of this is relevant to whether non-women or women "should" be homemakers. Women get pregnant but that doesn't mean they're in any way more suited to taking care of children than non-women.
> Because you can't raise children on your own.
Tell that to the literally millions of single parents who do a great job raising kids while millions of two parent households fail at it.
> Tell that to the literally millions of single parents who do a great job raising kids while millions of two parent households fail at it.
As far as I know, single parent households are largely dysfunctional and fail at producing responsible adults.
I find it hard to take seriously someone who thinks gender binary is a thing.
> As far as I know, single parent households are largely dysfunctional and fail at producing responsible adults.
Do more research then. That's absolutely false.
> aka, men
claimed that no genders or sexes other than "male" and "female" exist. But thanks for admitting you were wrong!
There are others though for sure.
She avoided about $45,000 of losses by selling ImClone stock early. Martha Stewart's net worth is over $600 million.
The fact that it was such an inconsequential amount for her really made an impression on me at the time.
I agree I was mistaken though about the case.
Here's a more interesting example...
Exceptional for a reason though. And it's not a pure one, life never is.
Of course this is often parasitic and I suspect you meant directly. Even then, thing called "gold digging" has a long long tradition. (Though being misattributed to women while it works on both sides just slightly differently. Often with more than a hint of slut-shaming etc.)
Edit: excellent. Call a thing like it is, get downvoted. People jump to conclusions, proving the point.
It's not a religious position to observe the existence of economic and social disparities.