cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/38830374
[…]
Submitted 11 hours ago by cypherpunks@lemmy.ml to technology@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/14f5a0b4-82b6-498d-a689-36c2824dd296.png
cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/38830374
[…]
Bro has the brainpan of a stagecoach tilter
I think Lenin (for all his problems), had a good criticism of the economist though I can’t find a great source for it
The Economist, a journal that speaks for the British millionaires, is pursuing a very instructive line in relation to the war.
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/…/01c.htm
For all his problems??
Disturbing. What is the proposed mechanism here? Or is it unknown?
They just use the buzzword “AI”, but in reality it’s probably going to be a machine learning algorithm.
Take the dataset, split out the groups of people you do/don’t want to hire based on whatever criteria, train the model to be more likely to pick faces with characteristics from the “do hire” group, and less likely to pick those from the “don’t hire” group.
Then, use it on real people, and it will provide similar outcomes based on faces.
What I meant was, what is the mechanism that supposedly connects facial features to job performance?
Is that…an AI generated image?
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The Economist is generally a pretty good news source, but I thought this article was subpar.
Irrespective of whether this facial evaluation algorithm works or not, as things stand today, it is pointless to discuss its use in the context of meritocracy. A regime founded upon the rejection of personal responsibility, corruption and criminality makes such discussions irrelevant (algorithm or no algorithm).
At the risk of sounding like an accelerationist, I can’t get rid of the feeling that the regime members are really busy doing their best to make a new metaphorical rope.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 hours ago
Gotta be drinking the pseudo-science sauce to believe this.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
That’s why I said this article was subpar. And I even commented on this in pretty harsh terms:
I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but I don’t believe they are malicious, at least to the extent that many American news sources are.
Maeve@kbin.earth 9 hours ago
Plus the post filled with buzzwords that superficially sound smart strung together in a way that say nothing of value.