Google AI No Longer Uses Gender Binary Tags on Images of People (inputmag.com) 368
Google's image-labeling AI tool will no longer label pictures with gender tags like "man" and "woman." From a report: In the email, Google cites its ethical rules on AI as the basis for the change. This is a progressive move by Google -- and one that will hopefully set a precedent for the rest of the AI industry. Ethics aside, Google also says it's made this change because it isn't possible to infer gender from someone's appearance. Google is correct on that count. AI's tendency toward a gender binary might be helpful in blunt categorization, but there are also many gender identities that fall on the spectrum outside of "man" and "woman." Though Google doesn't go as far as saying so in its policies, removing the gender binary from its AI actively makes the software more inclusive of transgender and non-binary people. It's a move that the rest of the tech industry would do well to emulate.
Great... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jack off to the tranny, bigot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gender identities that fall on the spectrum outside of "man" and "woman." are called Freaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Coward indeed.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Coward indeed.
What is truly cowardly and damaging, is failing to identify gender dysphoria as the mental disorder that it is. With a suicide rate of 40% pre or post-op, we're certainly not doing them any favors by giving them awards instead of treating them. I don't support forcing all of society to bend over backwards for 0.5% of the human race either. Perhaps you can explain how that make sense when we certainly don't do that for any other mental disorder.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Interesting)
^ This. The condition is actually a very serious mental illness. These people need professional care not for the entire world to pretend you can change a birth statistic with pills and cosmetic surgery.
I actually talked a dear friend down from this cliff that his psychologist had talked him into. While offering assurance I'd support him whatever he did I made him understand that gender was nothing than a stat and that you couldn't really change it. And that the person he was on the inside was a perfectly valid kind of man to be and not a kind of woman simply because he had a lot more interests in common with most women than men. There are WASPs who love native, hispanic, french, or japanese cultures that doesn't magically transform them into someone who is native, hispanic, french, or japanese. Changing their clothes, skin coloring, facial features, etc also would not effect that change. It is also perfectly okay that elements of those cultures better reflect who that person is. Cultures, preferences, clothes, hobbies, interests, etc are all actually just superficial window dressing anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Feminists are fine with discrimination, as long as it hurts men. That's why they buy "male tears" mugs.
Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)
What is truly cowardly and damaging, is failing to identify gender dysphoria as the mental disorder that it is. With a suicide rate of 40% pre or post-op, we're certainly not doing them any favors by giving them awards instead of treating them. I don't support forcing all of society to bend over backwards for 0.5% of the human race either. Perhaps you can explain how that make sense when we certainly don't do that for any other mental disorder.
You can call it a mental disorder if you want to, but the real question is: What are we going to do about people with gender dysphoria?
What is this "treatment" you speak of that we should be giving them? There's no magic pill to make gender dysphoria go away. Do you really think we can just talk to people and somehow convince them with our logic that "gender is just a stat and you can't really change it"? Should we try "praying the trans away"? Tell them they're going to Hell? What good do you think that would do?
How about this? How about we just accept them for who they are? How about we let people live their lives they way that they want to? They're not hurting anyone else. What's the big deal?
The suicide statistics you cite aren't because we are accepting transgendered people, it's because we don't accept them. Many studies have shown that when transgendered people are accepted their suicide rates and self harm incidents reduce. It's far better to live in a society that accepts you for what you are, than one that tells you something you know in your heart to be true is wrong.
And seriously, is this really "society being forced to bend over backwards for them"? Just letting them be? Is using their preferred pronouns really that much of a chore for you? Many transgendered people today live with the constant threat of violence from bigots who don't believe they should be allowed to live as who they are. Just accepting them for who they are is hardly "giving them an award".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just search for 'it' instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Just as I was about to tell Google I identify as 'na ); DROP TABLE Images".
Even Worse (Score:2)
Ruined the whole joke with a missing "'".
Re: (Score:2)
Ruined the whole joke with a missing "'".
and probably a nice ;
Re: Even Worse (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's because MongoDB is Webscale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
>> It's a move that the rest of the tech industry would do well to emulate.
Why does the tech industry need to pander to an extremely small percentage of mentally ill people?
Re: (Score:2)
>> It's a move that the rest of the tech industry would do well to emulate.
Why does the tech industry need to pander to an extremely small percentage of mentally ill people?
It doesn't, and it won't. This is just Google slowing digging their own grave.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"It doesn't, and it won't."
It does, and it will.
History is full of the vocal Minorities getting all the play. Do you think MOST of the Germans were Nazi or that most of the Whites were slave owners? Most people are not actually willing to cause a mass of destruction. Many go along to avoid being signaled out by that vocal minority. All wars... caused by minority, all great issues... caused by minority numbers, almost every major problem is sourced to a small minority group that often paints the offendin
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you think MOST of the Germans were Nazi
YES I absolutely believe that. Anyone who has spent any time studying the history of Nazi Germany knows plurality of Germans absolutely loved Hitler with all of their hearts.
The infamous 1934 referendum to make Hitler "fuhrer" was not even close and keep in mind it occurred **after** Hitler publically admitted to murder of several dozens of political rivals something like a month earlier.
Most people are not actually willing to cause a mass of destruction.
Yes they absolutely are.
Many go along to avoid being signaled out by that vocal minority. All wars... caused by minority, all great issues... caused by minority numbers, almost every major problem is sourced to a small minority group that often paints the offending group as being bigger than it really is.
This is delusional. 3/4's of the U.S. population supported the Iraq war. There are no shortage of people who want to believe it was all Hitler all just these outliers rather than face up to reality.
The silent majority is...
A figment of your imagination.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If what you say is true then the entire Nation of Germany should have been burned off the face of the Planet. If what you say is true then all of Islam should be burned off the face of the Planet. If what you say is True all Republicans, Democrats, Atheists, Christians, Homosexuals, Straights.... well lets just stop there.
If what you said is true then humanity itself needs to be wiped out... but I always like to say... if you need to murder someone... start with yourself!
Re: (Score:3)
"Burning them off the face of hte planet" is where such genocides start and are fostered.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
The GP said "most germans weren't nazis". The next poster said "yeah they were. They all loved Hitler with all of their hearts".
What I said was "plurality of Germans absolutely loved Hitler with all of their hearts." There were many millions who did the opposite.
It's crazy you can't just quote what I actually said instead of making up BS out of thin air and encasing that shit in quotations as if I had said it.
There is a problem with that statement. If most Germans loved Hitler and supported his policies, that would make them an inherently evil people.
My advice is to spend time researching human history. It's humanity that is inherently stupid and evil not just the population of some arbitrary country.
What would you suggest we do with an inherently evil nation & people?
Expose them to good governance would be my first guess.
The only solution is to wipe them out. Otherwise you risk Hilter v 2.0.
LOL you might even call it the final solution. Just the kind of crap that so ironically demonstrates my point.
I personally don't believe that they all loved Hitler.
I said plurality not all. They all certainly didn't love Hitler.
I think most just pretended to to avoid being singled out as a traitor.
Many certainly did just that. Intimidation and ballot shenanigans did very much occur and it was very much widespread. Even with generous allowances it still wasn't close. The fact is plurality of the people truly loved and supported him at the time. You can find out more and perhaps even try and understand why if you want to.
I don't believe Germans are evil.
Humanity is evil. Germans are merely a small subset.
Thus, I cannot believe that the majority of them loved that asshole.
Ignorance is bliss.
Re: (Score:3)
The referendum to affirm his position as Chancellor and President was for show. He had already taken over, and violently rigged the referendum. Opposition parties were already illegal, SA t
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I think they just gave up on trying to classify Pat, so they made up this excuse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Because they're still valid as human beings.
2. Even if you're just being a dick about non-passing transpeople, there are other categories of exceptions. I'm a Klinefelter's person, mildly intersexed. I present as male and identify as male but I can understand why some people with the same physical traits as mine might choose not to do so. Klinefelter's, while not common, isn't as rare as one might think. About 1 in 1000 humans are born with it.
3. Some people reject their gender or seek to nullify it. It
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
Strawmand bullshit alert!!!
"1. Because they're still valid as human beings."
yea.. that is totally what people meant when they disagree with someone... that they are no longer valid humans... O wait... that is what YOU mean when you disagree with someone... that is that anyone you disagree with is an invalid human. Nice Freudian slip there knucklehead!
" It's not your place to judge"
But it is yours huh? If people are not allowed to judge them, then you are not allowed to judge in response either. That just makes you a dumb fucking hypocrite.
My position is this. If we must conform to non-Binary pronouns then you need to refer to me by my preferred pronoun of SuGen.
It stands for Superior Gender. If you get to name yourself... we ALL GET TO DO IT! And you damn fucking sure better put your filthy money where you mouth is and honor the very fucking bullshit you bring!
Regarding your issue. I can only say that it sucks you got the hand you were dealt, but you also do not get to play that hand to abuse others for holding the identities they are accustomed too. I say the same to them when they try to disparage others that have a difference as well. I notice that a lot of people have a problem with getting along with each other... even those complaining about people not getting along, but this issue is something else entirely. The idea that people get to tell me that I am not allowed to have my own opinions or ideas unless it passes their approval or standards... even when my ideas are based in Scientific Facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody says you have to address people as they like.
Purely objectively speaking it is usually douchebags that don't though.
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Informative)
lol, yes, yes there are people saying that.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/... [www.cbc.ca]
There is even a law recently created in Canada for just exactly this for example. Sure something like it will be much harder to pass in the USA but may Colleges and States are looking at doing the same in some form or fashion. It's no secret either.
There are actual people wanting criminal prosecution against people that will not "literally" talk and dance however the gender bigots demand.
That's right... the people calling themselves "gender rights advocates" are actually "gender bigots". They want all their demands to be fulfilled under the literal threat of law.
Sadly, I also warned all the people that bullied and abused people with gender dysphoria or gender identity issues that there was going to be a backlash. That pendulum comes swinging back and people just never seem to understand that. If the "gender bigots" on both sides keep this up, it going to create a much bigger problem that will last for a long time.
There will be no peace for anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a douchebag then because I notice you didn't call the GP SuGen as requested.
Re: Misleading (Score:3)
You are absolutely allowed and encouraged to ask:
> Asking someone in good-faith for their name and gender pronouns is not a violation of the NYCHRL.
> Covered entities may avoid violations of the NYCHRL by creating a policy of asking everyone what their gender pronouns are
Re: (Score:2)
"SuGen" isn't a pronoun.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither is "zim" nor "zer," but people sure as fuck are forcing others to use them.
Sorry, "zem."
Re: Misleading (Score:2)
Have you ever thought that those made up pronouns could be a tool to generate outrage that when a man who has grown long hair and castrated himself says he would like to be referred to as she, you accept thinking "well at least it's not one of those made up pronouns!"
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not see the difference between say a non-binary person asking you to refer to them with gender neutral pronouns and you deliberately being a dick?
No one is suggesting that arbitrary pronouns are mandatory... Will no one except you. THAT'S a straw man.
Re: (Score:2)
But that is the crux of the problem right there.
#1. I have to popularize it to make it enforceable. That is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what is for lunch territory.
#2. The fact that as the smallest possible minority... that is an individual, I am a nothing. This means that your ONLY identity is the group you belong to. This entirely removes your agency and makes your race or gender your identity. Literally exactly the opposite of what the "racial and gender rights" advocates claim to be against.
If th
Re: (Score:3)
Calling or not calling someone by a specific signifier doesn't remove their humanity.
But let me ask this. What would you call a person that produces sperm, and then a person that produces eggs?
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd call that person what they wish to be called as best I am able. The name or title they choose to give is irrelevant and doesn't impact my life, and respecting their identity creates the least friction.
In real life, I work with someone who wants to be called Doctor. They aren't an MD, but they have a PhD in a social science in a field unrelated to the work they're doing now. I still call that person doctor. It's not worth arguing with him about it.
Re:Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
That's not the way things work. That's not the way life or biology works. We're mammals. A male produces sperm, and a female produces eggs. Sure, I can call the sky green when it's actually blue. I'd be wrong, and would just be confusing people, or I wouldn't be taken seriously. No humanity is removed in these facts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're trying to state that social science overrides biology. It doesn't.
What do you mean by "evolved species"? No one gets to choose to produce sperm or eggs, it's just how bodies work.
Insults just make you look like you have no argument.
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
"1. Because they're still valid as human beings."
Unless/until one says they identify as non-human? Then we can't tag humans in photos either? Someone with a pig-heart transplant declares he's interspecies (and maybe he's not wrong) and now image tagging algorithms can't tag any of the other billions of humans in billions of photos as having human beings in them, because hey, you can't tell which of them don't identify as 'human' by looking?
"2. Even if you're just being a dick about non-passing transpeople, there are other categories of exceptions"
No question. I fully accept that gender is a complicated subject both biologically, and psychologically. However, gender is a useful tag. If I want find search my library for a picture of "3 men by an apple tree" I don't want my search of my photo library to fail because the image classifier pretends that it can't figure out which people are men vs women with very high reliability.
"3. Some people reject their gender or seek to nullify it. It's not your place to judge their reasons for doing this, even if they are related to dysmorphia or just a political or social statement.
In general I agree with you. But there are limits. What if they are just wrong or confused or mistaken? If a toddler is confused and says he's a girl, does the rest of the world have to pretend he's a girl now? What if he says he's a bird? What if he calls a cow a horse? Are we allowed to correct him or does he just get to assign whatever labels he wants to things, and its up to us to call cows horses and agree he's a bird when having a conversation with him? What if its not a toddler and its a mature adult calling cows horses to make a political or social statement or because he's badly concussed or brain damaged?
In other words, my gender: attack helicopter. my preferred salutation : Lord Commander. pronouns: shazbot (all of them). and I have decided the color of the daylight sky is "green" to make a political or social statement. Don't judge me.... er... Shazbot have decided the color of the daylight sky is "green" to make a political statement. Don't judge shazbot.
That is no less valid, particularly since it falls within your protected criteria. Shazbot'm doing it to make a political statement. You are absolutely entitled to form an opinion about whether or not you think shazbot'm is just being an asshole here.
For my part, I accept that some people reject or nullify gender for legitimate reasons, but I also maintain that some people are just being difficult, and others are sick and need therapy. When a man decides his penis isn't part of him, doctors must call him trans and help him remove it... same man decides his arms and legs aren't part of him doctors treat him for mental illness -- no one's helping him take his limbs off. Something is wrong there. Gender is complicated, I get that. But I think i do have the right, even a moral imperative to form opinions on a case by case basis, rather than to simply accept whatever anyone else says as a reality that must automatically be respected unchallenged; and to accommodate their world view and to stop identifying horses as horses in pictures because they disagree with that labeling...
Re: (Score:2)
Your responses to the first three points are clearly trolling and I see no reason to respond to them, but "other" and "decline to state" are a perfectly acceptable alternatives to a form field with hundreds of inclusive options.
I have no idea what you're on about with your last few sentences, but I will say that there are many decaf blends that have the full taste and flavor of regular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Being sensitive to people with dysphoria or with actual genetic variances outside of the normal chromosome pairs is a good surface story.
I'd be more likely to guess that they're doing it so they don't get sued for defamation by some random person who gets misclassified.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure most people have been wrong at least once in their lives about whether a person was male or female (in the "traditional" sense).
Likewise, an AI determining gender isn't really a true/false determination under the covers - it's a percentage confidence either way.
Besides, if I'm looking for a picture of a man or a woman, do I really care what *they* call themselves? I could be attracted to a picture of a woman even if she thinks she's a man. Or what if someone mugs me for my wallet and identify the
Re: (Score:2)
Those people you actually refer for are not mentally ill, they just got their head full of post modernism and "desconstructionism", and well want to destroy gender because "it's a social construct".
They just mix in the trans movement to use people with actual problems as meat shields so they can do all their 151 gender shit with impunity.
Re: (Score:2)
We either cater to the religious nutjobs and their invisible man fixation, or to mentally ill people who believe weird things. Either way, fantasy seems to be winning over reality.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My curiosity is how do the Democrats not see that they are one gigantic projection.
They are some of the most hateful, racist, bigoted, and generally intolerant people around.
As an independent I get accused of being a Trump supporter more than I can accused of being a bleeding heart liberal. I keep trying to tell both sides... their crazy candidates are only going to evoke the rise of even crazier candidates on the other side. When we had Obama... I told the Democrats that the Republican backlash is going
Re:Misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because it is. After the National Socialists, and the International Socialists, and the Chinese copy, and the Venezuelan crisis... eventually even the most hard-headed figure out that when a politicians wants the government to take over entire industries in the name of socialism, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that it's not going to end well, not even in "nicer" countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Before Benito Mussolini created fascism, which party [wikipedia.org] was he a leading member of?
Did the National Socialist Program [wikipedia.org] include typical socialist goals like nationalizing all companies, sharing out profits with the workers, preventing speculation, national health care, etc...?
The primary difference between the National Socialists (Nazi) and the International Socialists (Communists) and why they didn't always get along was first who they thought should be in charge of the socialist movement in various countries,
Christ (Score:5, Interesting)
...but there are also many gender identities that fall on the spectrum outside of "man" and "woman."...
No there aren't. There's possibly a third gender ( debatable, but someone born with both could be considered intersex ), but that's it. There is no basis for the "many genders" nonsense other than "feelings".
Given that the skull and skeletal-muscular structure of the body is demonstrably different between men and women, I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product.
Re: (Score:2)
...but there are also many gender identities that fall on the spectrum outside of "man" and "woman."...
No there aren't. There's possibly a third gender ( debatable, but someone born with both could be considered intersex ), but that's it. There is no basis for the "many genders" nonsense other than "feelings".
Given that the skull and skeletal-muscular structure of the body is demonstrably different between men and women, I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product.
It will make arrests based on footage from AI cameras much more interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're conflating sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) and gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender).
I agree that this does seem a bit silly, though. People that care what others think about their gender identity apparently have nothing more important to worry about in life.
It saddens me that a leader in AI research has decided that the same type of basic assumptions that most people in the world make by looking at someone are invalid because those assumptions hurt the fragile emotions of a very smal
Re: (Score:2)
leader in AI research has decided that the same type of basic assumptions that most people in the world make by looking at someone
They also don't have humans employed roaming down the street pointing and saying "That's a man!" Who wants to get sued for automatic classification being wrong?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're conflating sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) and gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender).
I'm really not. Gender, as defined here, are nothing more than different behaviors which we're inappropriately using to differentiate from sex.
The truth of the matter is that people behave differently, we're all different. Yet for some reason, those differences can't just be normal human variation in behavior, but must be because there are hundreds of different genders!
It's a laughably stupid, "Emperor has no cloths" kind of moment we'll look back on and shake our heads.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The truth of the matter is that people behave differently, we're all different. Yet for some reason, those differences can't just be normal human variation in behavior,
The truth of the matter is that people behave differently, we're all different. Yet for some reason those differences are shoehorned into only of of two "genders" and can't just be an infinite spectrum human variation. And worse, those people most committed to shoehorning vast variations into just two classifications, object when you suggest that maybe the physical presentation of genitalia might not be the best way to sort this diversity of humanity into two arbitrary classifications.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look like a dude, I'm using dude pronouns. You look like a chick, you get chick pronouns. It's not a question of respect, it's a question of expediency; I don't give two shits about anyone's gender, if I'm talking to you it's to communicate something far more important than 'gender'. The last thing I want to do is stop so I can get your made-up pronouns correct.
Re: (Score:2)
You might see it that way when you don't care about that particular issue, but when a bot classifies you as "a snippy neck-beard with no people skills", you might take umbrage.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really care how it classifies me.
People [and computers, these days] make assumptions every day. Almost none of them matter to my life. But that's because I know myself well enough that I don't feel the need to force my self-image down other people's throats.
Furthermore, we shouldn't be placing "AIs" into positions where their classifications of people matter in any truly significant way. It makes this whole problem (and untold others) a non-issue.
Re: (Score:2)
While you can tell a good majority of people apart as male or female by appearance alone, there are plenty of people where it's not so exact. I've seen plenty of people who I couldn't definitely assign a sex to - they looked male, but had a female voice and mannerisms.
And I'm not even talking about gender fluidity - it's just some people have appearances that are ambiguous at best. I'm sure you know plenty of men who hav
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
My point is: It doesn't matter that much.
Re:Christ (Score:5, Informative)
That definition of "gender" was made up by researcher John Money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money), who believed that behavior associated with sex was purely learned, and not inherent. His hypothesis was proven false, and and his research was a spectacular failure that ruined the life of a boy named David Reimer, and led to his suicide. In other words, your concept of "gender" is pure quackery.
"genetic" rather than "gender" or "sex"? (Score:3)
Given that the skull and skeletal-muscular structure of the body is demonstrably different between men and women, I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product.
You're conflating sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) and gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender).
So if Google renamed the field from "gender" to "sex" then "male" and "female" would be OK?
Or are these two terms so politicized that we need a new term, something like "genetic"? Because the reality is a label based on appearance that is correct 999 out of 1,000 times does have some value.
Re: (Score:3)
You're conflating sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex) and gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender).
Or just using terms that were interchangeable for hundreds of years. Reality didn't change, people just redefined the terms to suit their agendas. Then they get mad that others don't play along with their fantasy. It will be interesting to find out which chemicals in the environment caused this jump in birth defects. The number of these folks has increased far more than 'it being more accepted' would suggest. Much like how autism has increased far more than just 'better diagnostics' would explain.
Re: (Score:3)
...but there are also many gender identities that fall on the spectrum outside of "man" and "woman."...
No there aren't. There's possibly a third gender ( debatable, but someone born with both could be considered intersex ), but that's it. There is no basis for the "many genders" nonsense other than "feelings".
Given that the skull and skeletal-muscular structure of the body is demonstrably different between men and women, I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product.
It just means it will function about as well as most of their other products that they leave in beta for years and then cancel.
Least conspiratorial and most likely answer... (Score:3)
Given that the skull and skeletal-muscular structure of the body is demonstrably different between men and women, I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product..
Maybe the AI really does have problems with feminine looking men and masculine looking women........
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out precisely what this change will mean to it's AI product.
It cannot be understated that they've declared objective reality incompatible with their product. Proceed accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
If you look at the lists of these thousands of extra genders, it becomes obvious that this is confused adolescents who are engaging in self-discovery. In other words, these "genders" are just descriptions of personality. Take "batgender" [mogaipedia.org], for example. This is just someone who's night owl, and thinks that somehow qualifies as a gender. Or take "Chaosgender" [mogaipedia.org]. This is someone who's impulsive or likes making a fool of themselves. Hell, apparently Autism [wikia.org] is a gender too.
There is absolutely no scientific basis
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are. Gender is anything but simple.
Even if you look purely at a "simplistic" definition of gender to be based on biological chromosome pairing (and ignore other genetalia-affecting conditions) there are at least 14 very real and distinct genetic conditions that you are waving away as "debatable" and "intersex":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the sociological discussion or complications of whether to and how to classify people who wish to id
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a load of horseshit. "Sex" is a distinct classification that brings with it a whole host of hormonal baggage, so even if we put aside the external physical characteristics we still have demonstrable chemical differences within the brain and body. These differences are what often lead to behavioral differences, but it's physiologically motivated differences, no societal ( or rather, not strictly societal; it's a feedback loop where positive expressions of those physiologically motivated behaviors are
For AI... (Score:3)
it isn't possible to infer gender from someone's appearance.
For current AI, it's not possible to reliably infer *anything* from the inputs. Are we going to kill *all* classifiers, then?
Re: (Score:2)
We should kill the ones that are based on faulty measurements. It's like trying to determine the length of a bit of string by looking at what colour it is. You can build an AI that tries to do it but it's never going to work reliably.
Losers with a losing world view! (Score:3, Insightful)
"Imagine there's no people."
Well, that's something [[[they're]]] trying to bring about! Georgia Guidestones; "timeline 2"; etc.
I am a man. I have X and Y chromosomes. A woman has two X chromosomes.
There are some mutants which happen so rarely they can be one-off cases.
There are also those who cut themselves and take pills, none of which behavior changes their genetics.
Google is doing it wrong, but why be surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
There are some mutants which happen so rarely they can be one-off cases.
In a planet with 7 billion people, you're still writing off at least several million people.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Untermenschen is the word he is struggling to find, but Uncle Goebbels would still be proud.
Google is pandering to a tiny minority. (Score:2)
Google also says it’s made this change because it isn’t possible to infer gender from someone’s appearance.
Yet humans do it correctly every day for greater than 90% of the population. And computers have done it correctly for several years for greater than 75% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just yesterday I was trawling Facebook for people I don't know and commenting on their photos "Man!" and "Woman!"
Futile (Score:2)
This gives a competitive edge to other AI organizations, though..
Google Image Search "picture of a man"/"pictures o (Score:2)
Google Image Search "picture of a man"/"pictures of a woman" should now return :
Your search - pictures of a man - did not match any image results.
Or
Your search - pictures of a woman - did not match any image results.
I guess.
The point in categorization (Score:2)
The point in categorizing objects is not at the behest of the items being categorized, but for some larger scope. If I wished to categorize, for business purposes, the number of males verses females that enter my establishment, to better optimize my advertising practices, then it is a totally relevant and morally acceptable use to have some AI do its best to visually categorize by gender. It is irrelevant to take into consideration the opinions of the individuals and what their preferred categorization is
Certainly will reduce its search usefulness (Score:2)
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
AI inaccuracy is not the problem at all.
The problem is that image recognition has gotten TOO GOOD at identifying men and women.
The computer has no problem pointing out a dude in a dress. It's humans who want to pretend it's something that it's not.
Discrimination vs distinction (Score:2)
Discrimination is assuming certain traits in an individual based upon which category they fall into. Discrimination is generally wrong (although there are cases where it's necessary to allow us to function in a timely manner.) because that assumption can be and often is incorrect for particular individuals, even if it's usually true for
No they didn't! (Score:2)
Google's very first response is:
Dictionary
sexual dimorphism
noun ZOOLOGY
distinct difference in size or appearance between the sexes of an animal in addition to difference between the sexual organs themselves.
Now if w can extend "Gender" to "Identity" (Score:2)
We can stop Google from tracking us alltogether!
There's actually valid reason for this (Score:5, Insightful)
We've also had trouble with AI software performing poorly on dark-skin. So this might not be entirely because of political correctness.
In western culture if a man is mistaken for a woman he may be insulted. Same thing if someone's age is incorrect. And facial AI has trouble with darker skin too. So if the software was not super great at identifying gender, then it might have been unintentionally insulting people. Remember the media outrage when Google's AI identified some girl as a gorilla?
Ethics aside, Google also says it’s made this change because it isn’t possible to infer gender from someone’s appearance.
It's definitely a gray area. Humans have trouble with this too, especially from behind or from just a face. And we get the benefit of a 3D representation usually. Children have trouble determining gender. It is difficult even on some adults. Usually we get to see the whole body, mannerisms, voice - but even that isn't a guarantee. So we should not be surprised that a facial recognition AI has trouble with this.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your points, do you GENUINELY believe that Google made this change out a realistic assessment of it's capabilities...or because they're deeply invested in being the woke-est company in the land?
Re: (Score:3)
What person has problem determining gender "from just a face", or from behind ?
1. I *NE
Person with, without penis (Score:5, Funny)
Just change the strings to "Person with penis" and "Person without penis".
Problem solved.
Well that's great (Score:3)
Stupidity is intersectional (Score:2)
You can repeat nonsense all you like, but repeating it won't make it true.
A tiny minority of people have bona fide gender identity issues. Most of that minority are happy to settle down as a man or a woman and get on with their life. Only a tiny minority of that tiny minority have any issues beyond that.
The transtrenders Google are pandering to don't need new genders. They just need their asses kicked.
...laura (who has some experience in these matters)
This is not science; it's just confused kids (Score:2)
If you look at the lists of these thousands of extra genders, it becomes obvious that this is confused adolescents who are engaging in self-discovery. In other words, these "genders" are just descriptions of personality. Take "batgender" [mogaipedia.org], for example. This is just someone who's night owl, and thinks that somehow qualifies as a gender. Or take "Chaosgender" [mogaipedia.org]. This is someone who's impulsive or likes making a fool of themselves. Hell, apparently Autism [wikia.org] is a gender
Bible bumpers (Score:2)
Just to get this out of the way, the Bible bumpers are going to throw their usual fits over this, and try to bully the US government into forcing Google to reinstate the tags.
Because in there mind the separation of church and State (I refuse to capitalize "church" here) was a Satanic plot by Madelyn 'O Hare (as opposed to the reality of the Founding Fathers instating that separation), and their "God" is the right one, because their book says so, and the people who wrote it says they saw God. Hard e
Re: SJW's at work (Score:2)
The SJWs arnt the problem, they're just the 21st century version of the deluded idiots on soapboxes shouting at the pigeons that no one ever listened to back in the day. The real problem are the bed wetting virtue signalling idiots who listen to them and then implement their mad wishes because they don't have the guts to tell them to go do fucking one and screw the 5 mins bad publicity with other deluded SJWs on Twatter.
It would surprise me if some ass clown turned up to his HR dept in 2020 claiming to be j
Re: (Score:2)
"It would surprise me if some ass clown turned up to his HR dept in 2020 claiming to be jesus, instead of calling the men in white the fluffy half wits would give him some fucking sandals and a cross."
You will find plenty of Jesuses, Albert Einsteins, billion dollar oil barons, scientists with knowledge 200 years ahead of the mainstream, and even Adolf Hitlers wandering the streets of your city. And we owe our thanks to the institutions being shut down 40 odd years ago so "the community will take ca
Re: (Score:2)
It's GNU, not Unix!