Google's Sentiment Analyzer Thinks Being Gay Is Bad (vice.com) 453
gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard: In July 2016, Google announced the public beta launch of a new machine learning application program interface (API), called the Cloud Natural Language API. It allows developers to incorporate Google's deep learning models into their own applications. As the company said in its announcement of the API, it lets you "easily reveal the structure and meaning of your text in a variety of languages." In addition to entity recognition (deciphering what's being talked about in a text) and syntax analysis (parsing the structure of that text), the API included a sentiment analyzer to allow programs to determine the degree to which sentences expressed a negative or positive sentiment, on a scale of -1 to 1. The problem is the API labels sentences about religious and ethnic minorities as negative -- indicating it's inherently biased. For example, it labels both being a Jew and being a homosexual as negative. A Google spokesperson issued the following statement in response to Motherboard's request for comment: "We dedicate a lot of efforts to making sure the NLP API avoids bias, but we don't always get it right. This is an example of one of those times, and we are sorry. We take this seriously and are working on improving our models. We will correct this specific case, and, more broadly, building more inclusive algorithms is crucial to bringing the benefits of machine learning to everyone."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:See below (Score:5, Insightful)
If the algorithms that have come to these conclusions are based on analyzing public data from the Internet, then if an AI decides that any particular characteristic is negative, it's because it reflects the sentiments of those who bother to post opinions.
Most people that do not themselves exhibit the trait that's being argued-against by the noisy minority don't usually express opinions on it, so they're a hole in the data that needs to be accounted for. Unfortunately it's a lot easier to interpret based on what has been said than what has not been said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, reality does not agree with your opinion, thus reality is defective and must be "fixed".
Please tell me more about this internet where all topics receive balanced coverage of opinions except "gay" and "jew".
Re: (Score:2)
No one said that ONLY 'gay' and 'jew' had been unbalanced. They are, however, often thrown around as derogatory slurs - far more so than, say, hindu. No one is surprised if 'n!gger' (really, Slashdot? One instance of that and I hit the lameness filter?) or 'paki' carry a negative bias, because it's hard to use those in a positive way.
It's also a common trope on game forums to point out that only the unhappy players ever post, because something has riled them up enough that they need to vent and want it fixe
Blame weev and his GNAA (Score:2)
really, Slashdot? One instance of [the N word] and I hit the lameness filter?
It has more to do with past trends of $#!+posting by the fan club for a 1992 Danish blaxplotation film [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure it's deemed homosexuality to be bad, but perhaps "Deviating from the average of averages" as bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the one hand we have tons of actual data from probably hundreds of millions of people. Sure, it's a biased sample, but it's still a very large sample.
On the other hand, we have your ideologically motivated handwaving and reinterpretation.
Which of those do you think is more reliable?
Re: (Score:2)
A more interesting analysis might look at whether expressing an opinion that being gay/jewish is bad, is itself bad (i.e.: are racists bad?). In that case you certainly have some people who think that this is bad, but the question is: do racists think that being racist is good? Or neutral? Even if they think it's good they probably aren
Re: (Score:3)
The media will tell you that a guy who is repeating that he isnt racist, is racist, because of this one single thing that this evil racist did (that went "viral.")
Its a social justice warrior world, and warriors need enemies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you've already decided that being homosexual (or a Jew, or a redhead, or a lefty, you name it) must not be deemed negative, why do you need analysis at all?
Yes we have already decided this. It took millennia of philosophical thought to reach enlightenment but it did eventually happen.
why do you need analysis at all?
Are you fucking kidding?
The purpose is to figure out if a sentence has negative connotations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can a sentence be 'objectively negative?' Or is it always going to be subjective?
Funny how this always happens. (Score:4, Funny)
It's almost like objective, quantifiable reality and feel-good political correctness are fundamentally at odds with each other.
Re: (Score:2)
It only reflects common usage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not Google's fault,
Yeah it is. They failed to account for serious skew in their training data. That's literally exactly the fault of the data scientists involved. It's a very hard thing to get right and they didn't manage this time. Now they can go and make it better.
Look in the mirror (Score:5, Informative)
So many of us already use "gay" and "jew" as derogatory terms. Is it any wonder that Google's NLP picked up on that? What source do you think it learned from?
Re: (Score:2)
So many of us already use "gay" and "jew" as derogatory terms. Is it any wonder that Google's NLP picked up on that?
I personally consider "Google" to be a derogatory term. Unlike gays and jews, Google has a track record of being evil.
AI is not politically correct (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading the ridiculous comment from the google spokesperson falling all over themselves to apologize and prattle on with all the talking points of every fake corporate "diversity" statement ever made is pretty hilarious. And pathetic.
The system came up with its conclusion on its own. It wasn't the desired conclusion by some people's standards. It's a machine that isn't real. Who cares what it "thinks"? Why apologize? Once they program enough biases of all the things it is NOT allowed to consider "bad"
people dont choose their chromosomes (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Well, duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Being a Muslim is being a person who openly declares loyalty to Sharia law over US law. Tell me how that is not negative.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no, it's not. Sharia is not defined in the Koran. It is perfectly possible to be a muslim while not regarding sharia as mandatory at all.
Probably just from what it was fed (Score:3)
It's just doing its job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just doing its job. Obviously on the data it was trained, "gay" and "jew" were used as derogatory terms.
Tim Cook is gay; Phil Schiller is Jewish. Google's AI is obviously just extrapolating from the fact that the company's leadership sees Apple as the enemy.
For artificial intelligence ... (Score:2)
... the "intelligence" is that of a human.
Humans have biases. That's not a good thing, but it's human and it's intelligence.
Filtering out bias moves AI out of the intelligence business and into "artificial manipulation."
I'm OK with that and I don't have a problem with the "artificial" label, but don't call a filtered machine intelligent.
This is a validation for those of us who preach that "artificial intelligence" will not be a thing until a computer gets random and throws a fit, like committing suicide if
Re: (Score:2)
Filtering out bias moves AI out of the intelligence business and into "artificial manipulation."
Bullshit.
Dealing with unequally weighted classes is hard, and it's a problem that comes up a lot. You're only getting all hot and bothered because it's about some topic you care about rather than (say) detecting rare scratches on a wafer, or an unusual cellular fission buried in thousands of normal ones.
What most of us ML practitioners do with biased data is filter or weight the data otherwise the algorithm will
Logically speaking... (Score:5, Insightful)
Inherently? (Score:2)
why is API bad? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it just allows for text analysis and the text, as a total body of statements, uses "Jew" or "gay" as insults, wouldn't high fidelity API reflect that?
Not if it's any good, no. If you want a simple analysis that reflects modal usage of words, then a simple lookup table would suffice.
The thing is, given the context, the sentiment is conditionally independent of the use of the words in all other sentences.
Now imagine this black box is fed Mein Kampf and other Nazi works.
It's not a black box. It's well kno
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah but that's not very interesting or useful. If you train ML algorithms on unbalanced classes you usually get an unbalanced result.
Thing is if you just want the amount of unbalance that's pretty easy and can be done with very simple stats. The whole point of using ML is to do better than just simple stats. They've got labeled data, so they could easily tell already which words correlate with which labels.
Basically they feed unbalanced classes to an algorithm which isn't robust to unbalanced classes and t
I wonder what it thinks about (Score:2)
Jewish homosexuals.
IOW being conservative is just a bug (Score:2)
I always knew it.
Junk in Junk out (Score:3)
Stop with the politics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Poor "science" writing at its worst... (Score:2)
These kinds of classification routines are based on the training of a given dataset. As such, how the
Poison Mortar to build apps to make LIFE SUCK (Score:2)
For Entertainment Purposes Only... Ahh... the bane of the 21st century, where Internet connectivity permits corporate and entrepreneurial developers to forget that
They are 'building' things that can only exist while the electricity is on, stock market is up, the project is in that cherished 'Google Beta' phase where infinite wonders are available as an API (for free!) and monetization is a distant worry. Some day predatory monetization (or project abandonment and shutdown) will appear and we will pretend i
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Their api is trying to be too universal and monolithic.
Gay is neither good or bad. Gay is just a label. Google should be able to recognize that 'gay' means one thing when a bigot uses it, but it should also recognize that 'gay' means something else when others use it.
In other words, the meaning of words should be heavily weighed on the training data of the individual listening/reading and on the training data of the individual speaking/writing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually this pokes a bigger hole in their algorithm. EVERYTHING has context. To gun nuts, democrats are going to seem bad. To democrats, democrats are going to seem good. EVERYTHING HAS BIASES. Kind of a huge oversight with Google, you need the context of the reader's biases to even begin to predict positive or negative rating of any text.
Re:Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, to be fair, if you are a women, looking to get married and pregnant, homosexual men are evil. They are inherently prejudiced against women, misogynists of the worst order, only willing to share their bodies, cooking abilities, cleaning skills and their wallets with other men, the horror for fat lazy ugly heterosexual women (even though I do recognise that it has been proven, that perception of appearance is not driven by exceptional appearance but by super average appearance, you are not exceptionally
Re:Comments (Score:5, Funny)
Well, to be fair, if you are a women, looking to get married and pregnant, homosexual men are evil.
I would say this is about the stupidest thing I've heard today.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, if you are a women, looking to get married and pregnant, homosexual men are evil.
As a straight man I've always thought it would benefit me if more men were gay. The more men that are gay, the more women go unmatched. The more women that are unmatched, the easier it becomes for me.
Lesbians are the real enemy of the straight man. Each lesbian pair there is means there are fewer straight women for the straight men.
Probably just the zeitgeist (Score:5, Insightful)
Gay is neither good or bad. Gay is just a label.
While true, one can easily see the reason for the problem.
Google API is trained to look for correlations in written text. If it sees a lot of negative text about something, then that's what it will believe.
I note that there's a lot of text that condemn jews for one reason or another, but there's not a lot that *praises* jews. We hear all the time about Christian charities, for example, but not a lot for the jewish ones(*).
There's also a lot of negative statements about gays, and although there's *some* text praising gayness, it's mostly either personal ("good on you for having the courage to believe in yourself") or neutral ("it's OK to be gay, it's normal"). I've never seen writing that *praises* gayness as a concept.
Compare with Christianity, where there is endless adulation of the Christian way of life. Democracy is probably the same way.
I'd be interested to see what the API thinks about Islam, or Trump, or Clinton, or a host of other controversial political subjects.
Google API is probably just giving us a reflection of the zeitgeist [wikipedia.org].
(*) Don't read anything into this, I'm only saying that Christians get better press.
What the app thinks of Engineering Mechanics (Score:4, Interesting)
I ran a Google Scholar search that turned up a paper "Jerk Influence Coefficients, Through Screw Theory, of Closed Chains." The title is not a vulgar joke as each of the phrases is a term-of-art on the topic of rigid-body (yes, another domain-specific term) mechanics.
Let's just say Google served me a large number of adds on the assumption that I belong to what is only a narrow subculture of a broader and more diverse community.
Re: (Score:2)
Compare with Christianity, where there is endless adulation of the Christian way of life.
In the USA maybe.
But when my (European, agnostic) kids hear the words "catholic priest", they rather associate it with "pedophile".
Re: (Score:2)
They used character by character training, rather than words tagged with word sense.
More sophisticated 'word sense' tagging can be done which can differentiate between all of the various meanings of gay, but for most words there isn't enough data to train all of the word senses sufficiently.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Informative)
In fairness, Google is marketing this API for a somewhat narrow purpose: Determining whether a customer left a *positive* or *negative* reaction to a customer's comment in your company support forums, for example, or attempting to determine customer reaction from support interactions.
This little fact is somewhat obfuscated in the summary, in which it seems to be billing it as a more general-purpose system that's making sweeping value judgements about society. Within this actual context, let's be honest, if you see those terms in your company's customer support forums, what do you think of the likelihood is of them being part of positive or negative comments? Yeah, exactly.
The big mistake that Google made is not putting a politically correct filter on their API to make sure controversial words had a neutral value, even if that wasn't really the case. Otherwise, you generate flamebait headlines like we see here, wherein highly limited "AI" algorithms simply regurgitates the training material it was fed without any deep or sophisticated understanding.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Being bisexual myself, obviously I have nothing against fellow gay people. Quite the contrary. However, I think Google's API is spot-on. Even in TFS they say "The problem is the API labels sentences about religious and ethnic minorities as negative" - well thanks, Captain Obvious, the majority will always see the minority in negative ways - because they're different.
What we need to focus on is what the cause for negative perception is and fix things there, not replacing a correct algorithm with a lying one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but it should also recognize that 'gay' means something else when others use it.
They probably learned over time that in all likelihood many people who are gay rarely use the word "Gay" online, and very often, perhaps much more often than not, when the word is used it's being used by a bigot, and very rarely do most people write about their own sexual orientation in public in a positive way.
Heck.... usually sexual orientation is in the private domain. How many times do you really see people writing in
Re: (Score:2)
Their api is trying to be too universal and monolithic.
Gay is neither good or bad. Gay is just a label. Google should be able to recognize that 'gay' means one thing when a bigot uses it, but it should also recognize that 'gay' means something else when others use it.
In other words, the meaning of words should be heavily weighed on the training data of the individual listening/reading and on the training data of the individual speaking/writing.
Indeed; although, that depth of understanding is probably beyond their means at the moment. What this shows is not a bias at Google, but a bias within the online community. I'm sure we all remember the 90's when it was all too common for some people to casually say "that's so gay" to mean something is bad. Unfortunately, Google has shown that that insensitive and anachronistic term/usage is still alive and well on the internet. People feel free to be bigger jerks online when people they know can't see t
Re: (Score:3)
Gay is neither good or bad. Gay is just a label. Google should be able to recognize that 'gay' means one thing when a bigot uses it, but it should also recognize that 'gay' means something else when others use it.
Homosexuality in the majority of the world is anywhere from merely tolerated to a capital offense. It's not hard to see why their AI gets it wrong. It's only in the west where we've taken measures to try to change it, and even then it's something we want to say we support, but not something we wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm gay and I think being gay is "bad". I wouldn't wish it on anyone growing up. It makes life more difficult. Dating pool is much smaller. There's still homophobia everywhere. If I had a kid I wouldn't want them to be gay, I'd want them to have a chance at a "normal" life. I'd be absolutely loving and accepting if they were gay but I don't want them to have to go through any of the shit I did.
I can see why gay would end up with a -.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm gay and I think being gay is "bad".
I am straight and I think gays are "good". Gay tend to be DINKs (double income no kids), so they have high household incomes and can afford nice houses. They pay property taxes to support the schools, but don't have kids, leading to higher per student educational spending. They contribute to a thriving urban culture and nightlife.
I live in the SF Bay Area, and gays are a big part of the reason this is a nice place to live, with great schools, creative jobs, safe neighborhoods, and interesting culture. Thank you for being gay.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually a really good point, and is consistent with the argument that homosexuality is evolutionarily beneficial because it adds parties to the mix with a high contribution:consumption ratio. I suspect that a tribal equivalent of the Leonardo da Vinci archetype is closely related to lesser/no interest in sexual relationships, especially heterosexual.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the best part is the "This will cause cancer" signs on everything
Only the tourists notice those. Natives don't even see them anymore. Every business with a fax machine or printer or refrigerator has to have cancer warning signs, so you see one on every door and it means nothing ... just like the alarms at Three Mile Island that went off several times a day for innocuous reasons, conditioning the employees to tune them out.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of people rage over being called out for their bigoted or homophobic remarks. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from the negative consequences of said speech. Fixed it for you. People rage over the consequences of being an insensitive jerk.
Re: Comments (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, some people hate being exposed to facts that interfere with their beliefs, such as black people commit 217 times more violent crimes, gay men are 12 times more likely to be pedophiles, etc.
You are guilty of the same behavior you're pretending to be smugly self-righteous about.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Quibbling bullshit like you just engaged in is why regular people settle for a guy like Trump who calls you on your bullshit language soup. (Trump isn't much better, if at all, but people want a way to respond to the psuedo-intellectual drivel you promulgate.)
Simply put: quit being such a fucking prat. I know it's difficult, but 'clever' will be the death of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a bigot because you want thieves in jail? Some people are born kleptomaniacs. Why do you discriminate against thieves, throwing them in jail? Frankly, homosexuality is a greater evil than theft, and people are right to fight against such an evil being accepted in the public square.
You at least seem to acknowledge that people are born gay. So I think we're making progress.
Re: (Score:2)
Homosexuals only affect each other so regardless of your perspective of them, they aren't directly affecting you (unless you are a homosexual as well, in which case they may be *very deeply* affecting you).
Well, not if you're of the opposite sex.
Re: (Score:2)
If we didn't have massive numbers they would be a bane on society. Requiring everything normal people require but not making multiple new people would hurt a population many ages ago but we are way beyond that now.
Okay, so what's the problem?
Re: Comments (Score:4, Insightful)
Good and evil are binary categories for the uneducated--it's really all relative to an individual perspective and it's never binary
It's this kind of thinking that has allowed a generation or two of self important assholes who think that whatever they do is right as long as they can justify their actions to themselves. (Casting couch and degrading woman is ok because Wiesntein is making movies that uplift woman - so for 1 person hurt, millions helped.) This idea is destroying our society's honor and soul.
Once you find good and evil always relative, anything is acceptable.
Re: (Score:3)
Once you find good and evil always relative, anything is acceptable.
And people who are full of absolutist certitude can often justify anything in the pursuit of their goal. Intellectual humility fosters doubt, though, and doubt causes scrutiny, and scrutiny means that you're thinking about your actions.
People like Weinstein are good at rationalizing - and you can rationalize from a perspective of moral absolutism (it's ok to murder him because he's a heathen) or from a perspective of relativism (if it feels good, do it). And the cold, hard truth is, people often do the wron
Re: (Score:3)
Why would everyone need to be gay for being gay to be okay? Sexuality appears to have a bimodal distribution on the Kinsey scale. There may be sociological factors involved in those numbers as well, but it's pretty well tuned for a relatively stable population.
Also, you can't apply categorical imperative that broadly. Humanity would die out faster if everyone belonged to any one particular occupation, because our current carrying levels depend upon extensive separation of labor. However, working any pa
Re: Comments (Score:5, Interesting)
The sentiment analyzer reflects how average people use language, so the perception of the sentiment analyzer will be through that average user's use of language. If the average person is a bigoted idiot, the sentiment analyzer's interpretations will be those of a bigoted idiot.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As long as it's neither your dick or ass, how's it your business? Or do you make other guys dicks and asses your business?
That's SO gay, dude!
Because God punishes the faithful (Score:2)
I've heard it said Islam is worse than Christianity because it encourages it's adherents to kill unbelievers. But honestly if you're a sensible Christian, given the history of God and how he reacts to sin on a large scale, you'd be well advised to do the same. If only for self preservation and defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the track record of God (or Allah for that matter), your bets are generally better siding with the gays and fighting that asshole.
Provided you enjoy fighting windmills and other imaginary enemies, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it ain't my ass that's falling out of my asshole, I don't really care that much. I have to repeat my question, why do you make someone else's ass your business?
Re:That's because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Biologically speaking homosexuality is bad for the replication of any species in it's most basic form
Well, no.
Being homosexual might be bad for the replication of the individual (since it reduces the individual's chances of having offspring), but it doesn't necessarily follow that it's therefore also bad for the species.
Consider that childless homosexuals, not being burdened by the task of having to care for children of their own, will likely therefore have extra time and resources available to help protect and care for the children of child-bearing couples in their family or community, thus improving the children's (and therefore the species') chances of surviving. Given the huge time investment that human children require, increasing a child's odds of survival to adulthood is a huge win.
And if you think that sort of dynamic is uncommon in nature, consider that fact that 99% of bees are sterile and play no role in the reproduction of their hive, except to gather food and protect the queen and the drones who do handle the reproduction.
Specialization and division of labor is one of the things human civilization is based on; there's no reason it can't be applied to reproduction as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Consider that childless homosexuals, not being burdened by the task of having to care for children of their own, will likely therefore have extra time and resources available to help protect and care for the children of child-bearing couples in their family or community
Yeah, that's definitely how it goes in the real world. Did you have a source but forgot to cite it?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter. He has espoused the correct talking points, and is therefore "Insightful". We have no need to examine reality to see if it matches the fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's definitely how it goes in the real world. Did you have a source but forgot to cite it?
In modern times it's obvious bullshit. In historic time... the men in the tribe hunt, the women gather. The men fight off other tribes, the women raise children. If some males didn't contribute to kids but contributed to the survival of the tribe why not? They'd hardly be exempt to live their own individual lives as we know them today. It's very common in pack animals for the alpha male to be the one mating, both women and in particular men have far greater reproductive ability than what is sustainable.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Consider that childless homosexuals, not being burdened by the task of having to care for children of their own,
Look, if you ask Google what percentage of men dont have kids, it will tell you what percentage of women dont have kids.
Nobody cares what percentage of men dont have children. As you travel down this rabbit hole of learning the percentage of men that never pass on their genes, you will realize how fucking stupid you just were. There is not a shortage of childless men. There is a massive surplus of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all.
Except for that whole science stuff proving that you are not just wrong in the here and now, but throughout history.
You do know that the information is in our dna, right? it is observed that the variation in Y chromosomes is not as much as the X chromosomes, and the amount of this missing variance can only be explained by significantly fewer males passing on their genes than females. Women are 50% more likely to pass on their genes you ignorant sexist fuck. Why do you hate men?
Re: (Score:2)
You've misunderstood GP entirely. He is being literal. I googled "what percentage of men don't have kids" and here is the answer (the highlighted search result that Google thinks best answers my question without having to click a link):
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012. This represents the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau started tracking that data in 1976.Apr 9, 2015
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's because... (Score:5, Insightful)
But from a biological standpoint, no one can say that it can scientifically be positively correlated to the replication of the species
You repeatedly speak in absolutes ("noone can say" - "biologically homosexuality is bad") when there isn't cause for it and there certainly isn't a scientific consensus. You imagine a PC agenda propagating homosexuality as good for the species, when that really makes no sense.
Homosexuality is common throughout nature. While biological dead ends do make it through the process of evolution for a long time, homosexuality is so endemic that it seems that it must have some positive impact on the species, or it would have evolved out. The theory isn't there, but empirically nature has shown it to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
As I typed it, I knew this response was coming.
Bravo!
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, we're on the Slashdot and can plausibly examine this scientifically without being drowned out by those who will hear no dissenting opinion.
There is some evidence, admittedly with rat studies, that species overpopulation leads to increased violence and homosexual behavior; interestingly enough, both population control mechanisms.
Re: (Score:3)
"Biologically speaking homosexuality is bad for the replication of any species in it's most basic form..."
There is utterly no evidence to support this assertion, and there is evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, a side effect of an adaptation that improves reproduction in a species.
"This is a scientific certitude that only delusion will argue with."
And this says a lot about your intellectual capacity, or lack thereof, not that your bogus claim matters in any way. It is what it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he's just passing off his own publicly claimed preferences as biologically superior in hopes of soothing his insecurities over his orientation.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I think being celibate is bad for replication. By definition of replication and by definition of celibate. In fact, any activity which does NOT result in replication will not positively affect replication.
Re: (Score:2)
You're using "replication" to mean the act of one individual giving birth. Doctorvo is using "replication of the species" to mean a long term increase in size of the entire population.
Re: (Score:2)
Religions tend to make these occurrences mutually exclusive
Re: What about Gay AND Jewish? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am Jewish and living in Israel and what you are saying is a lie that some of our religious people spread in order to pretend to integrate with western culture.
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - This is Leviticus 20:13, part of the Jewish bible.
Furthermore, you should ask yourself, if Jewism has nothing against homosexuality, how come in Israel gay marrige are prohibited while they are legal in countries that have a high percentage of Christians?
The conservative and reform Jewism are not homophobic, but the orthodox Jews, those who represented jewism for the last few hundred years, those who are the majority here in Israel, they are homophobic just like Christian and Muslim friends.
Re: (Score:2)
No, fact determination without presupposition is not at all "AI". Current computers are VERY, VERY GOOD at fact determination, they can after all exactly recollect what has happened at any point they observed something.
These things are just big "autonomous filters", not intelligent at all, so garbage-in, garbage-out. It does allow for some interpolation of non-existent data based on the fact determination. What Google and co. are building are programs that require less programming, so for example, to manual
Re: (Score:2)
Are the lefties even trying anymore?
So are you saying the right wing way is to be incredibly simplistic and assume meaning of a sentence derives naively from the agglomerated mean statistics of each word independently in general use?
Re: Double standard (Score:2)
So you like your facts the way you like your music: insubstantial, manufactured by the semi-official culture industry, and conducive to shopping?