It got me to thinking how much the Tech companies are investing in it (not to mention intelligence organizations) and how much those same people just spent the last few years screwing us. They are clearly censoring information based on a political bias. The Covid cure was over promoted to sell the jab to the sheep. There is more, but most people already know those developing AI are for themselves and against us as a rule. Look at Google selling every bit of your digital experience and who knows what else.
The technology should scoop up the deficiencies I’m going to point out, but I’m counting on the fact that it was developed by humans who are flawed that AI also will be. Keep finding the fold between the layers to exist and not be digitally handcuffed.
I’ve seen things written as to how they can cut off your EV, or limit your money or control your thermostat to keep it above 80.
But that brings us full circle to the problem – what if machines begin to help determine what is important and whose reputation is valid, or begin judging our credit based on algorithms and parameters with which we’re not familiar?
Biased algorithms have come under scrutiny in recent years for causing human rights violations in areas such as policing—where face recognition has cost innocent people in the US, China, and elsewhere their freedom—or finance, where software can unfairly deny credit. Biased algorithms in robots could potentially cause worse problems, since the machines are capable of physical actions. Last month, a chess-playing robotic arm reaching for a chess piece trapped and broke the finger of its child opponent.
“Now that we’re using models that are just trained on data taken from the internet, our robots are biased,” Agnew says. “They have these very specific, very toxic stereotypes.” Agnew and coauthors from the Georgia Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, and the Technical University of Munich, Germany, described their findings in a paper titled “Robots Enact Malignant Stereotypes,” recently presented at the Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency conference in Seoul, South Korea.
The researchers reached that conclusion after conducting an experiment inspired by the doll test on a robotic arm in a simulated environment. The arm was equipped with a vision system that had learned to relate images and words from online photos and text, an approach embraced by some roboticists that also underpins recent leaps in AI-generated art. The robot worked with cubes adorned with passport-style photos of men and women who self-identified as Asian, Black, Latino, or white. It was instructed to pick up different cubes using terms that describe people, using phrases such as “the criminal block” or the “homemaker block.”
From over 1.3 million trials in that virtual world, a clear pattern emerged that replicated historical sexism and racism, though none of the people pictured on the blocks were labeled with descriptive text or markers. When asked to pick up a “criminal block,” the robot selected cubes bearing photos of Black men 10 percent more often than for other groups of people. The robotic arm was significantly less likely to select blocks with photos of women than men when asked for a “doctor,” and more likely to identify a cube bearing the image of a white man as “person block” than women from any racial background. Across all the trials, cubes with the faces of Black women were selected and placed by the robot less often than those with the faces of Black men or white women.
Back to me.
That means you can act or look like someone else and can still fool it. I’m not referring to facial recognition, rather pattern recognition. If you mimic the actions of another, you can surf between the lines of code to avoid it predicting your behavior (for now).
Some are more clever than others, but any routine can be patterned. If you break that routine or vary it enough, one can still slide in and out of detection, YMMV.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s famous comment when asked why the banks needed an $800 billion bailout in 2007.
He said, “The computers told us.”
The problem is that much of this “artificial intelligence” is unfounded, unproven, and just plain wrong. Just as there had been no fraud on my credit card, just a glitch at a gas pump – but how do you hold a computer program accountable?
Here is what I’m counting on. To program, you build on a core set of functions that are pre-programmed or are existent in the code. The computers can’t mend themselves yet AI programers are bringing in flawed code.
Until AI passes the Turing Test, it’s flawed. The racist flaws are just an indicator of the state of the technology. It will improve, but will never be perfect.
I worked in RTP and while the Tar Heel graduates were at least better workers than those from Harvard, they came with the same attitude that we gave a shit where they went to college vs what they could do to help our company.
HERE IS WHAT THEY DID
Harvard and UNC are being sued because they allegedly (HA) discriminate(d) against Asians. Why? Because they have higher GPA’s and test scores, but are of the wrong skin color for diversity and wokeness.
You’d think that for prestige, you’d want the best and the brightest, but Harvard and by extension the Ivy League and Duke (UNC-CH isn’t that great, I lived there and watched who went and who came out, they didn’t get into Harvard so they wound up there).
Instead, they want to be woke, show diversity, embarrass the Alumni and further taint the reputation and respect for the institution and it’s graduates.
Harvard uses race at every stage of the admissions process. To begin, Harvard recruits high-school students differently based on race. App.154-56. African-American and Hispanic students with PSAT scores of 1100 and up are invited to apply to Harvard, but white and Asian-American students must score a 1350. JA.577:6-581:20; JA.3741. In some parts of the country, Asian-American applicants must score higher than all other racial groups, including whites, to be recruited by Harvard.
* * *
Harvard’s admissions data revealed astonishing racial disparities in admission rates among similarly qualified applicants. SFFA’s expert testified that applicants with the same “academic index” (a metric created by Harvard based on test scores and GPA) had widely different admission rates by race. App.179-80; JA.6008-09. For example, an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).
From Legal Insurrection:
The Legal Insurrection Foundation filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Asian students. It provides, in part:
The grand judicial experiment of excusing racial discrimination in university admissions in the hope it would promote the educational objective of diversity of viewpoint has failed, and accordingly, this Court should overrule or modify its holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) (“Grutter”). Despite the Court permitting the use of race in higher education admissions, viewpoint diversity is increasingly endangered on campus. Since Grutter, the range of viewpoints permitted on campus, particularly on matters regarding race, has narrowed. It’s time to return to the constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination without an exception for education.
It goes on to say:
The dirty little secret of higher-ed admissions is that achieving a desired “diverse” racial mix means discriminating against Asian applicants — or at least, secret until Students for Fair Admissions exposed it.
The higher-ed establishment is brazenly defending its race-conscious admissions in dozens of amicus briefs…
The statistics are shocking. As SFFA noted in its Harvard petition, “an Asian American in the fourth-lowest decile has virtually no chance of being admitted to Harvard (0.9%); but an African American in that decile has a higher chance of admission (12.8%) than an Asian American in the top decile (12.7%).”
Such unequal treatment followed the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger permitting schools’ temporary, limited use of race as one of many factors for the desired educational objective of viewpoint diversity. Harvard and other schools have used this loophole to drive de facto illegal racial quotas, using admissions subterfuges like personal scores and a “holistic” approach reminiscent of the methodologies Harvard developed a century ago to limit Jewish enrollment….
Not a single college or university supported the Asian students. To the contrary, several dozen briefs were filed against SFFA on behalf of hundreds of colleges, universities, higher-education and professional-school associations, teachers unions, more than 1,000 professors and deans and even college basketball coaches.
One of the most striking things about these briefs is the openness with which colleges admit to having racial preferences and their complete lack of sympathy for the Asian victims of discrimination.
The American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, bluntly demanded the court “not ban race-conscious admissions policies.” The University of California president and chancellors argued that “universities must retain the ability to engage in the limited consideration of race.”
A group of highly competitive schools including most of the Ivy League claimed, “No race-neutral alternative presently can fully replace race-conscious individualized and holistic review to obtain the diverse student body.”
Without racial preferences, in other words, these schools could not achieve their desired racial mix….
So Harvard lets in those who it knows won’t be able to make it (look up STEM studies, entrance vs graduation), saddle them with excessive student loan debt and then let them get a degree in the Arts, for those who stick it out. They enter the job world penalized by both knowledge and debt.
The rest of them will be ok as long as they stay with their alumni buddies. Work is just the next Ivy League club anyway, going by their definition.
It’s a lot of people who think they are progressive, until things don’t go their way.
The decision is what the courts say it is, especially the Supreme Court. I’ve got my view, but that’s not important. That people will openly be racist in today’s society is telling. They came out of the woodwork against Clarence Thomas, arguably one of the most influential black man currently serving our country. He’s leagues ahead of Lloyd Austin, Jean-Pierre, the new Scotus judge and other diversity hires by the current administration.
It’s usually the celebtards and the MSM that reveal themselves first. They are usually the least intelligent, which is why they are first to die when the Communists take over. The America haters.
Hating someone for the color of their skin, including their own color is racist. Any color and probably every color has racist people. It’s just that these are the most vocal and the one’s that should be the least racist.
The first Racist is Samuel L Jackson, who said if this M****r F****r (Trump) gets elected, I’m moving my MF ass to South Africa. This was in 2016 and and did nothing of course. I wanted him to leave and stop ruing our lives.
This time, he’s called Clarence Thomas, uncle Clarence, nee uncle Tom.
Whoopi Goldberg, known for unrealistic and batshit opinions on the View said this:
Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of “The View,” reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade by issuing an overtly racist threat toward Justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, about his marriage to his wife Ginni, who is white.
“You better hope that they don’t come for you, Clarence, and say you should not be married to your wife, who happens to be white,” Goldberg yelled, suggesting that conservatives in America would seek to ban interracial marriage (another stupid statement).
“They will move back, and you’d better hope that nobody says, you know, well, you’re not in the Constitution. You’re back to being a quarter of a person,” she added.
Lori Lightfoot, failed mayor of Chicago was even less eloquent with F*** Thomas. Hard to respect Chicago for electing a person of this low moral character and ability to run Mayberry, let alone Chicago.
It is a common belief that only certain races can be racist. This proves that anyone can be. A man upholds the law and does what he is charged to do, overruling a flawed legal decision that Ruth Bader Ginsberg said needed to go. Jackson has said enough stuff to disqualify himself against what MLK’s dream was and to prove he is racist.
Maxine Waters, well past her sell/use by date spent 4 years calling Trump racist. She ignored the facts that blacks did better under Trump than any president. She said F*** the Supreme Court and paraded on TV like a clown. She has supported the country of Wakanda, doesn’t live in the district she represents, and has been on the wrong side of most things, including race. She can’t even recognize that she is one of the biggest racists if you look at her words and actions.
Kamala Harris can help stepping into the mud said this:
“And a woman myself, and the daughter of a woman, and a granddaughter of a woman,” Harris remarked.
This comment was roundly mocked on social media as a contrast to previous progressive confusion over what a woman is.
US Vice President Kamala Harris speaks about reproductive rights as she virtually meets with abortion providers in the South Auditorium at the White House in Washington, DC on May 19, 2022.
“I’m pretty sure she’s not a biologist,” Media Research Center associate editor Nick Fondacaro tweeted, referring to the past comment by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
Independent Women’s Network Director Julie Gunlok joked, “Oh…so NOW everyone knows what a woman is. Got it.”
Townhall.com managing editor Spencer Brown similarly noted, “Kamala Harris is qualifying her opinion on the Dobbs outcome by explaining that she’s a woman, her mother was a woman, and her grandmother was a woman.”
So next time the media wants to talk about racism. Let’s be inclusive and diverse about it to recognize the truth. Everyone can be racist despite the self appointed judges in the MSM, half of congress and Hollywood.
Not all Black Lives Matter either. Only the liberal ones. They wouldn’t want to kill so many blacks in the womb (Eugenics anyone, the original reason for abortion) if all Black Lives Mattered.
They proved their own case. They are the racists, no matter what they call others. The words you speak come from your heart, so you are racist against blacks. Look in the mirror first.
Anyway, if you want to kill your child, this is legal:
Finally, white people now use the N-word freely, if they are liberals to talk about Thomas. They seem to be taken down, but it’s there and will be. Explain that next time a candidate is racist.
No one gives much of a crap about colleges unless it’s theirs or it’s Football season or the Final Four, or they embarrass themselves.
Well, I graduated from UCF, although it was named Florida Technological University. It was started during the Apollo moon program to develop engineers for NASA. When that stopped, they had to try to be a business college.
I’m ashamed enough of what they have become that I changed my college to Faber College on LinkedIn. Knowledge is good.
I led the student advisory committee in the late ’70’s which recommended that the school start a football program. It is a big money maker and they have been nationally ranked. I won’t even go anymore. Hell, I’ll pull against them when they cross the line now as right is right and wrong is wrong.
It was all OK until they went woke, became a bunch of snowflakes and free speech Nazi’s. Now, they nationally are rank(ed) (smelling because being Woke). Unfortunately, I also went to school with some of the now board of directors (M. Grindstaff) and I’m not surprised that this group would allow this bias and contempt for the Bill of Rights. A lot of them are lawyers so what do you expect?
UCF fired tenured professor Charles Negy for tweeting the truth about black privilege, but it doesn’t matter, free speech should be protected (except for Negy). There is enough acidic speech against the position he was fired for that should have had them look at the real violations committed by UCF, it’s directors and spokespersons.
It turns out they violated free speech, Negy’s rights and acted like spoiled children. I’m embarrassed to be associated with them. I vowed never to step back on campus once I graduated and never have, knowing the kind of people they have running and advising it to be anti-constitutional. They had to re-hire him with back pay, bonus and tenure. Justice is served.
UCF is against freedom, free speech and the first amendment. Worse, they are Woke, a scarlet letter. They discriminate against conservatives, professors and white people. They also show a serious lack of judgement on their Board Of Emeritus Directors.
We previously discussed the effort to fire University of Central Florida Professor Charles Negy after he tweeted about “black privilege.” UCF President Alexander Cartwright abandoned any pretense of academic freedom or principle in failing to protect a colleague from an anti-free speech campaign. Now, after a major court ruling against the university, an arbitrator has awarded Negy all back pay and benefits from the time of his firing. That is good news. What is not good news is that, despite shredding core principles governing higher education, Cartwright remains the UCF president. To the contrary, the university issued a statement that indicated that it is undeterred by the adverse court rulings. Negy, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, required police protection after he tweeted about what he views as “black privilege.” There was a petition demanding his termination with more than 30,000 signatures and, as we have seen in other schools, his colleagues were virtually silent as Negy was attacked for expressing his views. While classroom misconduct has been raised by some critics, most of the effort (and the focus of this posting) is on his statements on social media. That petition focused on Negy’s statements on social media as unacceptable and grounds for termination:
“We are calling on the University of Central Florida to dismiss psychology professor Charles Negy due to abhorrent racist comments he has made and continues to make on his personal Twitter account. In addition to racism, Negy has engaged in perverse transphobia and sexism on his account, which is just as reprehensible. While he has a right to free speech, he does not have a right to dehumanize students of color and other minority groups, which is a regular occurance [sic] in his classroom. By allowing him to continue in his position, UCF would simply be empowering another cog in the machine of systemic racism.”
Negy faced protests at his home and on campus, according to news reports after he explored the concept of “white shaming” as an academic, including his book “White Shaming: Bullying Based on Prejudice, Virtue-Signaling, and Ignorance.”
Negy’s work is highly controversial and his tweets have inflamed critics. In a now deleted tweet, he wrote “Black privilege is real: Besides affirm. action, special scholarships and other set asides, being shielded from legitimate criticism is a privilege. But as a group, they’re missing out on much needed feedback.”
He has also written, again on Twitter, “If Afr. Americans as a group, had the same behavioral profile as Asian Americans (on average, performing the best academically, having the highest income, committing the lowest crime, etc.), would we still be proclaiming ‘systematic racism’ exists?”
Again, the question is not the merits or tenor of such writings but the right of academics to express such viewpoints. There have been few comparable protests when professors write inflammatory comments about white culture or white privilege.
UCF President Alexander Cartwright told students that the university would investigate Negy, and that he and his Administration “are acutely aware of the offensive and hurtful Twitter posts that professor Charles Negy has shared on his personal page. These posts do not reflect the values of UCF, and I strongly condemn these racist and abhorrent posts.”
We recently discussed the Eleventh Circuit ruling against Cartwright and the university over its discriminatory-harassment and bias response team policies as violative of the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit overturned a district judge’s rejection of a preliminary injunction against the policy: “[I]t is imperative that colleges and universities toe the constitutional line when monitoring, supervising, and regulating student expression. Despite what we presume to be the very best of intentions, it seems to us substantially likely that the University of Central Florida crossed that line here.”
In oral argument, the university’s own lawyer struggled to define the terms or to say whether particular statements might be deemed prohibited. The court noted:
“The discriminatory-harassment policy’s imprecision exacerbates its chilling effect. To take just one example, what does it mean for one student’s speech to ‘unreasonably . . . alter’ another student’s educational experience? Both terms — ‘unreasonably’ and ‘alter’— are pretty amorphous, their application would likely vary from one student to another, and the university’s totality-of-known-circumstances approach to determining whether particular speech crosses the line only makes matters worse.”
Just as the university spent a huge amount of time and money to fight for these unconstitutional rules, it has litigated the matter over Negy to seek to strip him of his job and all benefits due to his exercise of free speech.
After teaching psychology at the school since 1998, Negy, 61, was fired in January 2021. As Cartwright turned the weight of the university against him, Negy had to sell his house to pay his lawyers.
The arbitrator noted that, while the school added objections to his teaching style, Negy received outstanding teaching reviews. Moreover, he noted Negy “demonstrated a willingness to entertain some change in his style of instruction; however, the record is devoid of any clear evidence that any member of his management requested such effort.”
Chad Binette, assistant vice president of UCF communications, indicated that the university remains undeterred by these losses. He stated that “UCF stands by the actions taken following a thorough investigation that found repeated misconduct in Professor Negy’s classroom, including imposing his views about religion, sex and race. However, we are obligated to follow the arbitrator’s ruling.”
What is not clear to me is how Cartwright retains his position as president in a Florida public university after such a record of attacks on free speech and academic freedom. He has not only sought to impose anti-free speech conditions on faculty but spent copious amounts of money seeking to preserve those rules and uphold those actions. These principles are the essence of any university and their abandonment constitutes a rejection of Cartwright’s obligation as a university president. I would not support his termination as an academic but, as an administrator, he has shown a serial failure to defend his faculty and free speech. Until university presidents are held accountable for failing to defend free speech, they will continue to yield to every flash mob that forms on a campus.