[cmiles74]

Thinking of racism in terms of the intent is a way to take the issue less seriously, to force the issue into the realm of opinions and beliefs. If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist. And so on.

It's an old tactic, I don't think changing the terms will make much difference.

[blfr]

But racism is from the realm of opinions and beliefs.

[cmiles74]

A lot of people rationalize racist or discriminatory beliefs in such a way that they seem reasonable. Yet, when you judge their behavior as a whole, it tells a different story. The banker who consistently gives loans to people from [group x] but not from [group y] who have similar financial features. When we talk to the hypothetical banker, they may claim that "numbers don't tell the whole story", etc.

[jstanley]

Racism is discrimination based on race, everything else is not racism.

[danso]

How does that address the parent commenter’s assertion? Discrimination, whether intended or not, has the same outcome for the discrimated party.

[50656E6973]

Statistical differences in outcome cannot be automatically attributed to discrimination, though they frequently are

[hannasanarion]

Yes they can, because that's what "discrimination" means: differences in outcome due to uncontrollable irrelevant factors like race. Discrimination is an effect, not an intent. Racist intent is called "prejudice". Discrimination can be caused by prejudice, or it can be caused by something else, like a poorly considered algorithm.

[50656E6973]

No, that's pseudo-social-science because it falsely assumes outcomes are solely determined by external variables and is completely ignorant of internal variables, such as differing cultural values.

Some cultures value family life over money, others value money over family life, for example.

[hannasanarion]

I'm sorry, this reply doesn't make sense to me. What does "different cultures are different" have to do with whether computer systems can be discriminatory or not?

[StellarTabi]

It is racist if the data is built on 100s of years of racism and the ML is trained on a dataset poisoned by racism.

[cmiles74]

I think it's important to note that there is no algorithm that can have an "intent". If we are to agree that racism is a feature of intent, then there will never be a racist algorithm. Yet the outcome will still be discriminatory.

[malvosenior]

> If the intent of the perpetrator is the deciding factor, then it is always arguable that perpetrator's intent was not specifically racist; perhaps it was driven by a misunderstanding, etc. Since it was informed by misunderstanding, it isn't racist.

Are you saying that this is racism. Most people would define what you outlined as not rascist.

[cmiles74]

I'm saying that racism cannot be solely an issue of someone's intent, it needs to be evaluated by the outcome. An outcome is a fact that we can all observe. An intent is internal to a person, we can never get a clear view of a person's intent; at best we can make deductions as to a person's intent based on their behavior.

Claiming that racism can be evaluated only by the intent is simply moving the goal posts into an area where we can't clearly observe. It's a tactic.

In terms of this specific issue, algorithms by their very nature lack intent. Thus this particular argument has no validity; we can only judge the algorithm by it's results: the outcome.

[malvosenior]

> Claiming that racism can be evaluated only by the intent is simply moving the goal posts into an area where we can't clearly observe. It's a tactic.

Claiming racism is anything but intent is changing the definition of racism. Which is:

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

If you start changing the definition of words to suit a political goal, only the people who already agree with you will listen.

[AnimalMuppet]

I agree, but cmiles74 has a bit of a point, too. Everyone short of the KKK (and maybe even them) will claim that their intent is pure. Lacking a foolproof way to judge others' hearts, all we have to go on is actions and their effects.

As I said, I agree with you. But our position can lead to hiding some genuine racism under the "unintentional" disguise. It also leaves unintentional systematic biases unaddressed. While those may not exist as often as the left claims, they do at least sometimes exist, and do need to be addressed.

[cmiles74]

I don't disagree. But I don't think we can judge the intent of people who are discriminating in a racist way, aside from simply asking them what the think their intent might have been. At that point it's very likely we'll be dealing with a rationalization or a half-truth because not only is there a stigma attached to racist behavior but in many cases it is illegal as well and there are other punishments to contend with.

If we need to accurately gauge their intent, that's not really possible. In the case of an algorithm we've divorced the process from the source of intent (the author of the algorithm), there is no intent to evaluate.