LastInALongChain t1_j7qntuv wrote

the government is unethical, its exists to threaten people at the point of violence into following the rules (laws) the country lays out.

What if I want to do heroin for the rest of my life? Why is that unethical? Its unhealthy, but its ultimately my choice. Its illegal because it would make me a drain on government systems and unable to provide tax income or contribute to the economy. To that end the state would choose to enslave me via incarceration if I chose to disobey.

You can say the gov't is necessary to make society function, but it is ultimately unethical.


LastInALongChain t1_j1s5on6 wrote

>How can AI be biased if it's only looking at raw data. Wouldn't it be inherently unbiased? I don't know just asking

Data can be bad looking at groups, not reflecting individuals.

If you have one person who belongs to group z, and this person is a criminal, steals, and commits assault, you wouldn't want to hire him. But the AI just choses not to hire him because he belongs to group z, and group z on average commits 10x the crime of any other group. It does the same to another guy of group z, who has a spotless record, or who has a brother that died to crime, so he is at risk of committing crime due to the association of others that revenge kill.

Basically AI can only see aggregate behavior, because judging individuals would require a level of insight that would require a dystopian amount of real time access to that persons data.

Technically an AI could look at groups and be like " On average these guys have good traits" but that's literally the definition of bigotry.


LastInALongChain t1_j1jzuvm wrote

I just asked it to do it, and it gave me art that was randomish. I asked why it did that, and it said it wanted to make something a person would like or find relevant. I asked to remake it according to its self image of itself, without taking human design sensibility into account. It then produced a series of interconnecting diamonds that it said referenced a neural network, with a few lines which were green. I asked why the lines were green, and it said it made it more visually appealing to add color.


LastInALongChain t1_ixi6sgq wrote

Grad studies are selective, they just select based on conscientiousness. Look up big 5 personality, its the gold standard for personality research and life outcome prediction. Conscientiousness controls the degree people are willing to work. A person with a score reaching the extremes of conscientiousness in the population will just work 16 hours a day and sleep 8 hours so they can get right back to working. Conscientiousness is the biggest predictor of academic and workplace success. IQ is good, but it doesn't surprise me that its not the be all end all.

In my experience you can boil doctoral students that succeed to be one of: hard working, anxious, or successfully creative.

Degree inflation is just a different thing altogether though. Its schools jamming people through higher studies for more money, while reducing the level of training and oversight. Which leads to people who can't answer the question "How would you go about researching a completely new topic/field you have no experience in, to solve a particular question/reach a particular goal?"

I've asked that question to dozens of professors, and only like 3-4 had a good answer with a philosophy and methodology.


LastInALongChain t1_ixhrp6i wrote

I don't understand the point you're trying to make?

I agree completely, personality factors makes a way bigger impact than IQ in most situations. My concern is that PhD's are just poorly trained over 6 years, and the same outcome could be done faster, more effectively in 2 years. Most schools just have terrible methodology, and rely on personality traits to make up the difference in outcome, while letting people without the right composition of personality drop out. If anything this supports my point.

To clarify, I'm strongly anti college, anti 10 years of education that is mostly forgotten or useless. Not making an argument about intelligence. Higher education is just a parasite on society at this point.


LastInALongChain t1_ixgj1tl wrote

Or just repurpose college and high school. Increase the quality of education, and reduce the timeline to have everybody graduate at 16. Then just have a significant job training and placement program. Have college be a place for research and hyper-niche specialization, with an accelerated timeline of 2 years for any specific program. Avoid situations where people have spend 4 bachelors, 2 masters, 4 PhD years to get a job making powerpoints at 28.


LastInALongChain t1_ixggu9s wrote

Why not show the full chart:

Clear decline in the 1940-1991 range of latvia in the soviet union even compared to historical trends. Also the 1990 crash was bad because it was a government/economic collapse. the covariates controlling fertility are discussed here:

"“the impetus for parenthood is greatest
among those whose alternative pathways for reducing uncertainty are limited or
blocked” (p. 383). Children are, according to Friedman et al., among the few
“global strategies” available for individuals for reducing a broad range of uncertainties. The two primary alternative strategies are marriage and a stable career. Individuals who have limited possibilities for uncertainty reduction through stable careers are therefore more likely to have children. To support this interpretation,
Friedman et al. cite various studies showing, for instance, a positive relation
between labour market success and childlessness in the U.S. and a negative relation
between employment opportunities in the neighbourhood and contraceptive use
among black teenage Americans."


LastInALongChain t1_ixgez5k wrote

Empowerment is fine, education is clearly crashing the birthrate. I don't hate women, I'm just explaining the actual, known factors that control the problem.

Too many people in these threads have a terrible understanding of reality, They all go "duh, things are bad so just add more good stuff like money and time and houses and we would have kids". Completely ignoring the reality that good things, like education and egalitarianism, can have bad long term effects if done sloppily and without awareness. Everybody just uses these threads to demand more free stuff for themselves, which is just gross and transparent and indicates they haven't done any research at all.


LastInALongChain t1_ixgekse wrote

Well A) There are a ton of PhD's that do technician jobs due to degree inflation and B) no, I manage technicians. but also C) I could 100% train a technician to do my job, and research effectively to solve any given problem. Its a thing you can make an algorithm for, most universities just suck at teaching people how to be good at research, and rely on their individual personal inclination towards hard work or creativity to fill in the gaps.

Edit: As long as i'm posting. I've worked with dozens of PhDs in industry, and 80% of them are ineffective at any given task that isn't their technique of specialty. Uniformly they are all terrible at management of workflows.


LastInALongChain t1_ixbao8n wrote

This was always going to be a problem in ex-soviet states. As a result of making education so accessible across the board, they crashed their own birthrates.

A countries birthrate is directly associated with the number of years people have to dedicate to training to take part in the jobs the country provides. A woman with a grade 10 education has 4+ kids, a high school educated woman 2.5 and a college educated woman 1.0. Education is directly causal, and years spent in education controls 40% of the variance of number of children born per woman. If you want education, you will have low birthrates. Nothing to do with IQ, its 100% years of education.

Its a terrible fact that good things can generate bad outcomes on the scale of populations. But acting in line with natural law, people could make the decision to force companies to train people without an education for top jobs. Have a track that basically makes different guilds of major professions, so people can get a directed education while working in their intended field and being paid. Doctors, scientists, lawyers, etc. I have a PhD and after having gone through it, I'm certain that the vast majority of people could be trained to do highly specialized, doctoral level work with just workplace education and opportunity. We as a society need to agree on cutting university loans to restrict the number of people who go there early, and make it a place of hyper specialization for people in their 40s.

That way 18 year old's wouldn't have to worry so much about getting trained for 6 years in college, then spending 10 years working their way up a corporate ladder to make use of the education, only to be pretty close to a geriatric pregnancy. Which is why education is directly, causally bad for fertility. Literally all organizations dealing with overpopulation agree with this.


LastInALongChain t1_irr2ya0 wrote

I mean, you linked the stats

White - 3,650 homicides - 60.1% population

Black - 4,078 homicides - 12.2% population

White -60.7 murder per percentage

Black - 334.2 murder per percentage

5X, not 50x. Sorry


LastInALongChain t1_irjlto9 wrote

Yes, i'm sure that black people are stopped more frequently. This will lead to them getting hit more on small crimes, because they are policed more.

But there are some crimes, especially in the stats you linked, that indicate that the rate of crime is objectively higher. Murder, violent crime, rape, etc where you have a victim that can act as objective evidence would indicate that the black crime rate is extremely high, and not a consequence of policing. From that, I would assume the increased policing comes from seeing that.


LastInALongChain t1_irjkphq wrote

>Black people do not commit way more crime. How is that even statistically possible when we are only 12% of the population

I mean, the AI would look at the relative rate of crime between population groups as part of the process of discriminating who should get a resource to maximize whatever outcome its looking for. Black people are frequently low income and urban, and are part of gangs at a higher rate for that reason. Besides the whole policing bias issue, where people are concerned about black people being over represented in stats because the police are patroling around them more often, for racist reasons, there are a lot of signs that gang violence is overrepresented and indicates an actual objective inclination towards a much higher rate of crime that will for sure come out in the data.

Murders for example are hard to cover up because you have an actual body on the ground, and the black crime rate for murder is 50X any other population, so an AI will look at that and draw conclusions. It seems unlikely that the white or asian population have 50X murders going on in secret that they just cover up really well using racist police. Doesn't mean that black people all murder, but any policy from the AI is necessarily going to discriminate against the group as a whole, unless it were to have perfect information about every individual.

I mean, that table you reference in the link says White 45% murders, black 51% murders.


LastInALongChain t1_ir3bzts wrote

This will make AI unusable.

Racism always happens with AI because AI just looks at group trends to try to make the right decision without factoring human experience and free will into it.

For example, black people do commit way more crime and are more likely to default on loans. A crime fighting AI or one that chooses who gets loans would be right, logically, to discriminate. And it would get better returns and efficacy than one that was race blind. But it doesn't factor in that an individual black person who isn't a criminal, and who is good on his loans, shouldn't be hung because of group association. It will be very difficult to make a functional AI that isn't found to be discriminatory, if differences in outcome already exist between groups.