Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
cool.I think you're actually allowed to dislike both.
I don't know if you realise that you just sound like someone sulking because he thinks someone else's opinions are being listened to, and that maybe it'll even give their career a boost if someone agrees.Honestly, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I am talking for particular cases where people agree in vast majority of cases, but something that is hardly controversial at all is putting people on trouble (for example, someone very high on Facebook said that 'most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data' and had to leave the Twitter because of the bullying that was unleashed on him, with actually Facebook apologizing for that statement. Which actually is totally correct). He was accused for borderline white supremacy for crying out load.
Or with the change of a conference name fiasco, when a Harvard professor gave 'a scientific' opinion why the word NIPS is not offensive, to only be attacked by a Caltech professor (with her opening statement being 'you are blind, I am disappointed, I hope you learn for the problem and get enlightened' to only then spend the next 2 years complaining about how that professor is sexist and accusing everyone who didn't distance himself from that professor.
In my field, it seems that the only way of acting that don't put you in trouble is to not ever get into debate with women/black people. It can be for the smallest things (for example woman A says something, man B adds something to clarify what she said to only be accused for sexism from woman C cause A could have explained her thoughts itself, why do you think you can complete her opinions, just that you're a man). If you get into a debate (even a purely scientific one), there is a non-trivial chance that you are screwed already.
This type of insane behavior and bullying is what I am talking about. And I am seeing it increasing everyday.
Again it is far better in Europe. You actually can have opinions. Not in US(SR) though.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Is that real?
Interesting but entirely consistent, in my reading of it. The shaming that he examines in his work, he fairly comprehensively defines. "Cancel culture" is a far more spurious term that may include everything from shaming to silencing and censorship and more.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Interesting considering he wrote a book all about public shaming.
You can tell he’s pretty jaded about getting tagged into every single Twitter pile on and asked to be judge and jury.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Interesting considering he wrote a book all about public shaming.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
idk if i've shared this story here, but a friend of mine at a very very elite university knows a lab whereThis is a more clear cut case of racism in academia and the field of economics. It's almost as if your success in the field hinges on the whims and fancies of rabid racists.
Ok, here we go again. Yes, if you go from the prior 'that all white male are sexist and racist, all black women are pure' yes, you get exactly that conclusion, that I am sulking because they are stealing our jobs instead of staying in Africa. Or you can check some facts:I don't know if you realise that you just sound like someone sulking because he thinks someone else's opinions are being listened to, and that maybe it'll even give their career a boost if someone agrees.
Instead of speculating, let's see what happened.It seems that your particular preoccupation is that AI is coming under more scrutiny as its early manifestations start doing more work. Part of the scrutiny is without doubt falling on the idea that "AI is colour blind and genderless" in its decision-making, whereas the reality is that it's currently as unaware of institutional and systemic bias as you appear to be.
I don't know which "very high in Facebook" individual you say posted "most of the bias on machine learning systems come from the bias on data" - there have been a few examples over the years. Of course he was right, he was "telling the truth" but if that was where he left it, as an excuse for the resulting bias in the outcomes of searches, targeting of ads or even employment practices, then he deserves to be criticised. Especially if he's very high in Facebook - there's no real excuse for someone in that position not to address the key point - that AI itself has to be trained differently, if it's not simply going to reinforce the (racist/sexist) status quo. Diversity, at the top of organisations like Facebook and in the technical discipline of AI is actually crucial to cracking that kind of problem. Data analysis needs to understand biases built into the data.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
No, he is not unemployable. After all, he is Yann fecking LeCun, the guy who invented convolutional neural networks, the main tool on AI today and winner of Turing award (the Nobel of computer science). He is chief scientist on Facebook, and before was the director of AI, in fact, founding director. He was also the only voice (that matters) on Facebook not regulating hate speech with regard to Trump's hate speech. And from the exchange, he said nothing wrong, nothing at all, was always civil and respectful. That did not stop from people attacking him for daring to disagree with Timnit Gebru, and some of those people are actually very influential (for example a famous Caltech professor who is also Director of AI in a top company).If the Facebook high up is now cancelled as unemployable, then that's a shame - because presumably he does have some talents, he just maybe doesn't have the talent/experience/empathy to be commenting on the subject. Or do you just mean he got criticised and his employer had to make some kind of apology saying that they know better, and that they understand that they have a responsibility to improve.
No, he is not unemployable. After all, he is Yann fecking LeCun, the guy who invented convolutional neural networks, the main tool on AI today. He is chief scientist on Facebook, and before was the director of AI, in fact, founding director. He was also the only voice (that matters) on Facebook not regulating hate speech with regard to Trump's hate speech. And from the exchange, he said nothing wrong, nothing at all, was always civil and respectful. That did not stop from people attacking him for daring to disagree with Timnit Gebru, and some of those people are actually very influential (for example a famous Caltech professor who is also Director of AI in a top company).
The result, LeCun says that he is leaving Twitter, calls for people to not attack Gebru (yes, she got attacked from some people who dared to say that she was being disrespectful), and his boss had to publicly apologize to Gebru (did something happened in between?). Despite that LeCun did absolutely nothing wrong.
I mean, having different opinions in science is kinda expected. Einstein was quite against quantum mechanics after all. And even if we assume that Timnit is the expert and LeCun is a noob (when in fact, LeCun is her senior by 3 decades and 150K citations), and even assuming that LeCun was wrong (which he wasn't), so what? He never said that 'it is only the bias on data that makes ML systems racists', he never said that 'we should not do anything about it'. He was simply giving a scientific opinion.
The discussions (in science too) have become extremely toxic and totally not-malicious correct comments can bring a lot of trouble to people. Which is extremely ridiculous!
Yeah sure, as you say.what level of censorship do you advocate for criticism of scientists? obviously one starts with the disrepectful tweets to higher citation authors, but what about the snarky subtweets? blogs? in my opnion, we need to find all the ways they are being disrespected (while still getting more likes than comments on each one) and stop it. also, if we train the system on enough existing tweets, it should be possible to automate the criticism of those making these harmful tweets in the first place.
i think our joint proposal has real potential!
no, we must restrict the free speech of would-be cancelers before this gets out of hand.Everything is cool, right.
You complain about black people "playing the race card" while you are all over this thread playing the "getting called a racist card".Yeah sure, as you say.
Person A says that 'the bias in ML systems comes cause datasets are biased', person B essentially calls him a white-supremacist, Person A then has to apologize. Everything is cool, right.
Cancel culture has nothing to do with government, and you know it well.no, we must restrict the free speech of would-be cancelers before this gets out of hand.
seriously, what exactly is your complaint here. all of this happened within the liberal bounds of free and open discourse. just like 4chan. you may not like the result of this, and i may not like the result of 4chan's /pol/, but there was no government or even corporate silencing of speech here or in /pol/. the debate resolved itself with an apology here and resolved itself with nazism there. that's how it goes. if speech is free, you can't control the result.
Yes, I am saying that calling someone a white supremacist is not very coolYou complain about black people "playing the race card" while you are all over this thread playing the "getting called a racist card".
Unless, of course, he says or behaves like a white supremacist. Same as accusing someone of playing a racist card when someone is not playing the racist card is not cool. In general, accusing people for something that they haven't done is not cool.Man I never thought this would feel EXACTLY like dealing with White supremacists. The "my Black friend" argument, a few Black men jumping in on that side, etc. Trump also has a Black friend who supports him, I'm sure he has many in fact...
what happened in that exchange, on both sides, is free speech. every bit of it. your criticism of that exchange is also free speech.Cancel culture has nothing to do with government, and you know it well.
My problem is that free speech is getting limited, were saying perfectly correct scientific opinions (which aren't even controversial in the first space), makes you getting attacked and being called a white supremacist, with many other people saying bullshit about you and with your boss having to apologize. It is a sick culture where you need to stick 100% to some particular ideology. It also has been experimented heavily last century. It never ended well.
What is exactly your point?what happened in that exchange, on both sides, is free speech. every bit of it. your criticism of that exchange is also free speech.
No one was called a white supremacist there, you're faking it to win a debate. He's obviously pointing out how poor the arguments are, by saying that it's the same ones that white supremacists use. If white supremacists use those arguments to defend themselves, then they're obviously inadequate.Yes, I am saying that calling someone a white supremacist is not very cool
Unless, of course, he says or behaves like a white supremacist. Same as accusing someone of playing a racist card when someone is not playing the racist card is not cool. In general, accusing people for something that they haven't done is not cool.
that you cannot confront cancel culture (at least the example you provided) without restricting speech in some way. just like some people think you cannot confront racist culture by restricting speech in some way.What is exactly your point?
I have never said that the cancel culture needs to be policed/regulated by the government. I had just said that it is a sick behavior that if it continues like this, it might bring countless problems.that you cannot confront cancel culture (at least the example you provided) without restricting speech in some way. just like some people think you cannot confront racist culture by restricting speech in some way.
the logical battelegrounds are then - what is the line beyond which something is racist (cancel culture)? is it ok to be racist (a canceler) and still be employed? who gets to police racism (attempts to cancel) online? should there be legal speech restrictions to racist speech (twitter threads trying to cancel)? is reverse racism (canceling a canceler) also a type of racism (cancel culture)? and etc.
it depends very heavily on the context. saying racial slurs is protected by law. talking about the inherent inferirity of some races isn't just protected by law, it is a position taken by some prominent people in my field.Also, there are legal consequences for being a racist.
Yes, indeed you did go again - with more or less the same post you've already made.Ok, here we go again.
So again, no one got cancelled then.No, he is not unemployable. After all, he is Yann fecking LeCun, the guy who invented convolutional neural networks, the main tool on AI today and winner of Turing award (the Nobel of computer science). He is chief scientist on Facebook, and before was the director of AI, in fact, founding director.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I saw some responses saying that he shouting "I feel threatened" so that he could use a gun legally.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He has beliefs about masks and what they would do to him.He feels threatened by an old woman?
That is true, but he didn't.I saw some responses saying that he shouting "I feel threatened" so that he could use a gun legally.
I don't know how the stand your ground law works but it's scary if it can be abused in that way.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Personally I'm not a fan of this social media justice either. In some cases, i guess it has it place, but I would rather use the video footage as evidence to give to the authorities if the person is violating a law. Now it's basically millions or thousands of strangers calling for you to fired and condenmed for being an asshole.He has beliefs about masks and what they would do to him.
That is true, but he didn't.
Whatever his sins, I am 100% against him being fired. Cancel culture means many things, and context is important. Here is someone fired from his job, losing his income and his health insurance, because he is an asshole (and his shirt probably means he has awful views beyond masks). I believe assholes deserve to live. The barrier to fire someone should be higher than this. Alternatively, basic income and healthcare should not be dependent on having a job.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/youre-fired-featherstone
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Personally I'm not a fan of this social media justice either. In some cases, i guess it has it place, but I would rather use at evidence to give to the authorities if the person is violating a law. Now it's basically millions or thousands of strangers calling for you to fired and condenmed for being an asshole.
But what tells you that it's the only reason they fired him? There is also the possibility that this isn't the first time that they have a negative experience with him and that this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back. My experience is that people that are appreciated in a company are given more leeway by management.He has beliefs about masks and what they would do to him.
That is true, but he didn't.
Whatever his sins, I am 100% against him being fired. Cancel culture means many things, and context is important. Here is someone fired from his job, losing his income and his health insurance, because he is an asshole (and his shirt probably means he has awful views beyond masks). I believe assholes deserve to live. The barrier to fire someone should be higher than this. Alternatively, basic income and healthcare should not be dependent on having a job.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/youre-fired-featherstone
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date