Amazon je moral ukiniti pristranski AI za pomoč pri zaposlovanju

Aggressor je 17. okt 2018 ob 11:44 izjavil:

ZaphodBB je 17. okt 2018 ob 11:23 izjavil:

Ti si si gladko izmislil, da AI ni upošteval kompetenc. Tega v resnici ne vemo. Ker o tem ni na voljo nobenih informacij.

"Problems with the data that underpinned the models’ judgments meant that unqualified candidates were often recommended for all manner of jobs, the people said. With the technology returning results almost at random, Amazon shut down the project ..."


Reading is hard, yo!

Anyway, have fun, I'm out.

Če se obešaš na imena, potem moraš biti dosleden in ugotoviti, da so od l. 1943 do l. 1991 obstajale štiri različne "Jugoslavije" (DFJ, FLRJ, SFRJ pred 1974 in SFRJ po 1974), pa čeprav jih ljudje poimenujemo z enim samim imenom, ki slučajno ni bilo ime niti ene izmed teh držav. Analogno ni nič spornega ali problematičnega v izjavi, da se je temelj EU postavil l. 1951.

Zgodovinarji in politiki se strinjajo, da je zelo težko začeti vojno, če sta dve gospodarstvi tesno povezani. Zato je kavzalnost jasna in gre v smeri od tesne gospodarske povezanosti med Nemčijo ter Francijo, ki jima omejuje voljo in možnosti, da bi konflikte pustili, da nenadzorovano prerastejo v vojne. To je držalo tudi v letih 1966-2009, ko Francija ni bila vključena v poveljniško strukturo NATO, ki bi bil potencialni drugi "krivec" za daljše obdobje miru.

In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[3] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[4] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[5] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[6]

According to Angell, the economic interdependence between industrial countries would be "the real guarantor of the good behavior of one state to another",[5] as it meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive [of the local population] to produce would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation."[6]

Further, the nature of modern capitalism was such that nationalist sentiment did not motivate capitalists, because "the capitalist has no country, and he knows, if he be of the modern type, that arms and conquests and jugglery with frontiers serve no ends of his, and may very well defeat them."[7]

Angell said that arms build-up, for example the naval race between England and Germany that was happening as he wrote the book in the 1900s, was not going to secure peace. Instead, it would lead to increased insecurity and thus ratchet up the likelihood of war. The only viable route to peace would be respect for international law, implemented in a world court, in which issues would be dealt with rationally and peacefully.

gus5 je 17. okt 2018 ob 15:53 izjavil:

ZaphodBB je 17. okt 2018 ob 09:58 izjavil:

"Odprtost" -> cenzura mnenj s katerimi se ne strinjam.

Negativna svoboda (brez vseh ovir) ne obstaja, svoboda je lahko le pozitivna (pogojena, včasih tudi s cenzuro). Sicer pa odprtost pomeni predvsem omogočanje interakcij, (spo)razumevanje, empatijo, vzajemno učenje. Cenzura omejena kvečjemu na mnenja, ki pozivajo k nasilju. 'Bojmo se prostosti brez modrosti.' (V. Vodnik) Kajti družba prostosti brez modrosti je družba prostakov.

kallia je 16. okt 2018 ob 10:51 izjavil:

Jah, mega korporacije diskriminirajo na podlagi spola in rase. K sreči vsaj v športu niso tako primitivni.

Man "identifying" as woman wins women's world cycling championship

”Focusing on performance advantage is largely irrelevant because this is a rights issue. We shouldn’t be worried about older people taking over the school running races. We should be worried about their fairness and human rights instead.”