|
|
|
|
|
by josephh
2201 days ago
|
|
Isn’t this a similar argument that could be made against race and gender based affirmative action? I don’t understand how organizations like ACLU are critical of face recognition tech because it reenforces implicit bias that engineers have but then turns around and supports race and gender based affirmative action that similarly reenforces implicit bias where PoC (but not Asians for some reasons) and non-males are presumed to be disadvantaged purely due to their identity. |
|
I think these organisations are criticising the tool builders for creating tools that are easily misused (or are created with unreasonable limitations, like only being valid for university students at one university, but are sold as widely applicable).
Supporting affirmative action initiatives like you list is trying to address the biases that exist in reality. I think this is often a bit backward (not addressing the root cause) but it can be expensive (in time, effort, money, politics) to address the actual root cause so these programs aim to address the bias at the place in manifests.
This is a similar (dare I say pragmatic?) argument to "it would be cheaper and more effective to just give everyone a no-strings attached payment each month then to provide means-tested payments to those who need help".
Detrmining if these arguments are correct is a different thing altogether, and I have no idea if these programs are cheaper and more effective then dealing with the root problem, or if it's even possible to define and address the root problem in the first place!
The two things you contrast above are fundamentally different - one is criticising tools and tool builders, the other trying to address perceived biases in the world.