Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by sharpneli on Monday April 22, 2019 @06:52AM (#19717866)

“[the anti–sex difference contingent is] in fact advocating for biomedical research to retain its male subject–dominated status quo so disproportionately harmful to women.”

The money quote. The situation in neuroscience is pretty much the same as if in Machine Learning people would say ”You must use just white males in face recognition training”.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by gubbrora on Monday April 22, 2019 @09:57AM (#19718945)

I reckon there are more Asians in machine learning than there are white people, so that example is misleading.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by sharpneli on Monday April 22, 2019 @11:16AM (#19719525)

https://www.google.fi/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/20...

Just one example. This issue in ML has been on the surface for few years now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate by guitarbill on Monday April 22, 2019 @11:36AM (#19719713)

From that article:

> And, as The Atlantic story points out, other groups have found in the past that facial recognition algorithms developed in Asia were more likely to accurately identify Asian people than white people; while algorithms developed in parts of Europe and the US were able to identify white faces better.

Maybe Wakanda can share their facial recognition tech and we can combine them all into a fair model? (Joking about the first part, obviously, and about the second part, e.g. Aboriginal Australians, Maori, etc that don't neatly fit into those three categories.)

[ Parent | on HN ]