Business entities benefit, because on average the predictions are right, but individuals are being discriminated against, and btw, besides the protected categories, other types of discrimination are also unfair.

by all means, educate people that just because some population is perhaps on average more criminal, it doesn't imply any individual belonging to that population is also more criminal.

To hide the statistics would also hurt efforts to find solutions. That can not be a good thing.

Edit: if you don't like the criminal example, what about noticing some populations are on average poorer than others? Would that be a good thing, because government money could be diverted their way, or a bad thing, because banks would be less inclined to lend them money, and landlords would be less likely to rent them a home?

I've never seen this. Can you link some examples?

And while people will surely respond to this post with "Ha, got him! He can't link to a specific example!", I don't believe it's a reasonable expectation of me to catalogue the thousands of comments I read on this website.

Searching for "US demographics collection nationalists" finds one result (your comment above - and presumably soon this one): https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I tried "US data collection nationalists" but that only found one page of results none of which supported your assertion: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Do you have a better set of search terms?

The closest I've found is [1] which is a downvoted comment saying:

> Census data indicate White population has shrunk since 2010

Why is this the first bullet point? Why a focus on White people? Why do you care HN?

The only other place I see stuff like this is when it’s used as an alt-right talking point, or by white-supremacist mass-shooters who write about ‘The Great Replacement’ [1]

So that isn't even arguing against collection of stats. But it's the closest I've been able to find.

Perhaps you are misremembering?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23735866

I am not opposed to scrutinizing decision making. But that should happen at the human level, not by scrubbing information from the data or output of algorithms.

Some bias is also necessary for survival. When I am walking home at night, I am more likely to change the side of the street when a group of men is approaching me, than when a group of women is approaching me. You can tell me that is discrimination all you want, but I value my life higher than your ideals of political correctness.

However to expand on that I think it is primarily a problem with point statistics. If a Bayesian philosophy was followed, it's about looking at the plausibility of the entire space and realizing an individual can fall anywhere with a non-zero plausibility (or even in some cases an individual can even fall into an area of 0 plausibility given that it is a model and not reality).

With an objective quantity like height it's easy to see the error, but harder with less well-defined quantities like intelligence, character, etc..

It's frustrating to see people talk past each other with ill-defined terms.

I agree, but the person I was speaking about specifically was the former, not the latter. They were extremely resistant to the idea of measurable biological differences. This is an intelligent, science-believing person.

I think there are a few main groups that people fall into around these kinds of subjects:

1) People who suspect that there may be differences in groups of people, but know that acknowledging them will probably lead to arguments that support sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc (because they have historically), and so they avoid acknowledging any differences that can't be explained by bias.

2) People who want there to be differences in people so that they can justify their biases against groups of people.

3) People who don't want there to be differences in people, because it doesn't align with a fair worldview that they want to be real.

4) Everyone else who just want people to be honest about potentially uncomfortable truths.

There are very, very practical problems here. It's not about nebulously wanting to avoid enforcing stereotypes. It's about avoiding very real and very negative outcomes for unsuspecting and innocent individuals.

It's the same exact reason why "racial profiling" by the police is unequivocally and universally considered unjust and bad, except by racists who like to quote statistics as a kind of pragmatist veneer.

What's worse is that you could end up racially profiling people without even meaning to, either by omission (not enough people who look like X in the data) or by technical limitations (apparently facial recognition algorithms struggle with dark skin even on balanced datasets). There is a lot of very interesting and important work to be done in this area.

This gets complicated when you start to differentiate between hormones and genes, as might happen when you involve trans people. My understanding (and a cursory search seems to back this up) is that pre-puberty, height isn't different based on chromosomes. Its only post puberty that this difference occurs (and of course there's points in time where in aggregate, girls are taller than boys, as they hit puberty earlier).

So your claim is that there are chromosomal height differences. But assuming that there are enough trans people in the population, and specifically trans people who had hormone therapy through their pubescence, self-identified gender might be a better predictor, because you'll have someone with XX chromosomes who identifies as a man and had a male puberty in terms of hormone levels.

This get's very subtle, because then "men are taller than women" remains true, while "measurable biological differences" may be false, or at least...less true. Yet you presented these, offhandedly, as equivalent statements. I don't think rejecting that premise (or at least, not taking it as a given) is fundamentally anti-science.

A XX person that self-identifies as male and hasn't been subjected to hormone treatments is less likely to display male-like traits (incluiding the hypothetical "higher height" we are discussing about) than a XX person that identifies as female and has been subjected to a "male-like" hormone profile by exogenous means.

Finally, just because "measurable biological differences" may be mediated/caused by differences in hormone levels, rather than differences in genes, doesn't make them any "less true".

> Finally, just because "measurable biological differences" may be mediated/caused by differences in hormone levels, rather than differences in genes, doesn't make them any "less true".

Sure, but my point is that if exogenous hormonal puberty becomes common enough (like, 50% of the population opts in to them), you can end up in a situation where in aggregate there are no measurable differences. You have equal numbers of XX women and XX men, and XY women and XY men. And all the men and all the women have equivalent heights, irrespective of their genes. In such a situation genetics cease to be predictive of height, while gender remains predictive.

I acknowledge that such a situation is unlikely, but it should still cause one to second guess the "biological" nature of the differences.

I think there's another interpretation of what you're saying which is that given two XX-chromosomal people, one who had a male-like puberty and one who had a female-like puberty, they present biological differences. I'm not sure if that stance would be widely accepted, but let's assume for a second its true.

Then I can construct sort of the opposite of the prior situation: a society where a huge number of people transitioned post-puberty, and so now identify as the opposite of the gender they went through puberty as.

If we look at biology, there's a clear mapping from chromosomes to height. If we look at gender, there's no correlation (there are tall men and short men, and tall women and short women, in approximately equal numbers and so you end up with two bimodal distributions). In this situation, we don't really have measurable aggregate biological differences between the men and women.

This is really the point I'm getting at, talking about biological differences between men and women get's very complex very quickly assuming you want to consider trans people. And really complex may be the wrong word, "completely not useful" is perhaps better, because (at least usually) biological categorization comes from genes.

We end up with 3 possible predictors for height: genes, hormonal-gender-at-puberty, and gender-today. Its not clear to me, when talking about biological differences, which of these three predictors we want to use, or even if we want to use biological differences, and we were seemingly assuming we'd use only one of them.

This is unlikely, as you say, but in such an hypothetical situation, where half of the male population is being subjected to feminizing hormone treatments while half of the female population is being subjected to masculinizing hormone treatments, sure... you would be (artificially) reducing the difference in heights between XY and XX people. But notice that, again, the deciding factor is not at the psychosociological layer ("self-identified gender"), but still at the biological layer: what matters is whether you are genetically/chromossomally male and/or subjected to male-like hormonal profiles, and not so much whether you identify as a male.

> I acknowledge that such a situation is unlikely, but it should still cause one to second guess the "biological" nature of the differences.

If the differences are literally mediated by a combination of genetic and endocrine effects, then how could it be anything other than due to "biological" factors? Sure... if you identify as male (while not being a XY person), you're more likely to subject yourself to hormone treatments that lead to more male-like traits... the correlation is there... but the main factor, in the end, is whether or not you subject yourself to those treatments (and not so much how you identify as).

> Then I can construct sort of the opposite of the prior situation: a society where a huge number of people transitioned post-puberty, and so now identify as the opposite of the gender they went through puberty as.

This is, again, quite hypothetical. But, even in such as case, I would assume that people's physical traits would still be generally more reflective of one's genes and hormones, rather than how one identifies as or the social role they choose to perform as. Biological factors (including genetic and endocrine) would generally be more determining that psychological or sociological factors ("how I feel" or "how others perceive me").

> If we look at biology, there's a clear mapping from chromosomes to height.

There really isn't (at least not a "clear" one). You can have really good genes and still end up short due to nutrition (e.g., you're not getting enough protein and calcium in your diet) and/or epigenetic effects (e.g., your parents smoke and/or were subjected to malnourishment for a while at some point in their lives).

> If we look at gender, there's no correlation (there are tall men and short men, and tall women and short women, in approximately equal numbers and so you end up with two bimodal distributions).

This is, again, quite hypothetical and unlikely (that you end up with two bimodal distributions with no differences whatsoever in terms of mean or median-shift). Either way, it just reinforces what I've been saying: your gender (i.e. how you identify and/or how society sees you) is probably not a very important factor in determining height (once you account for confounders such as "hormonal treatments").

> In this situation, we don't really have measurable aggregate biological differences between the men and women.

Sure, in an hypothetical situation where you're giving feminizing hormones to half the men (to make them more woman-like) and giving masculinizing hormones to half the women (to make them more man-like), you could perhaps reduce differences between the two subpopulations (though not entirely... hormones don't control everything after all). But, notice that, again, you are using a purely "biological" process to achieve this and, even though you seem to be going out of your way to come up with a situation where there are no "measurable aggregate biological differences", I'm pretty sure that you would still find "aggregate biological differences" because there are non-endocrine genetic factors that affect height.

> This is really the point I'm getting at, talking about biological differences between men and women get's very complex very quickly assuming you want to consider trans people.

I don't want to sound insensitive, but if someone says "men are generally taller than women", you can probably infer from the context that they are most likely using the terms "men" and "women" to refer to biological men and women (i.e. not just someone who identifies as "man" or "woman", but someone who has the genetic and/or endocrine profile of a "man" or "woman").

To clarify, I think a "trans woman" is a "woman" and a "trans man" is a "man". But, even with hormone treatments, there are clear measurable biological differences between a XX person and a XY person (if nothing else, XY people have a shorter chromossome).

Furthermore, this overall discussion glosses over intersex people... there are plenty of people out there that are neither exactly male nor female, biologically.

Imagine there is a miracle drug that cures cancer, but it has a 95% mortality risk for men and 0.1% mortality risk for women. Should I treat a certain person according to how they identify on a psychological and social level, or according to their biological properties?

> We end up with 3 possible predictors for height: genes, hormonal-gender-at-puberty, and gender-today. Its not clear to me, when talking about biological differences, which of these three predictors we want to use, or even if we want to use biological differences, and we were seemingly assuming we'd use only one of them.

We probably want to use the predictors that are more predictive. And, as I mentioned, a person's chromossomal sex and what profile of hormones they are and were subjected to (along with environmental, nutritional, epigenetic, etc. factors), in the end, is much more determining (and, thus, a better predictor) than how a certain person identifies (or identified) themselves on a psychological or sociological level.

In the end, and as always, I think much of the disagreement has to do with the fact that people use terms that, without the proper context, could be misinterpreted (like "woman", that can be used to mean "XX person", "phenotypically female", "identifies as female", and I'm sure many other things).

Everywhere! What is missing from the #4 sentence is "... and brave or reckless enough to actually discuss any of those things in public when 'wrong-think' can possibly lose you your job, social connections, and who knows what else going forward, since everything on the Internet is permanent now".

Sure, replacing "much more likely" with "definitely" is inaccurate.

And if you're assuming that whoever's saying this has more data available - like actually meeting wherever they're talking about - then well discarding information is also silly.

With the level of investment people are putting into ML technologies, these types of ground truth calibrations would cost only a fraction of the total budget.

You have yet to qualify exactly what you mean by disparity here—it doesn’t help that the example you used (i.e gender-height correlation) isn’t an ML model.

I wholeheartedly disagree. You cannot wipe away genetic predisposition and natural talent like that.

I've taken some pertinent college classes, like Intro to Psychology and Social Psychology. These are really hard things to debate in good faith because people look around them at the world, see the reality that men are, on average, taller than women on average and assume genetics when we don't actually know the reason.

So if you have good faith reasons to wonder put loud or speculate about such things, you are likely to get treated dismissively and not taken seriously.

There is a huge component of "them that has, gets" and it's really hard to sort out exactly why x person got y outcome. If you are interested in social justice -- or even just making your own life work when you are the "wrong" demographic -- then these are really frustrating discussions to try to have. It may be some hypothetical argument for someone whose life works well, but it's often a desperate attempt to get a fair shake of some sort by marginalized people.

So there's a lot to unpack there and it's hard to unpack it and there are legitimate reasons why some people feel strongly compelled to not go along with "the obvious answer" that "everyone" knows to be true, even though they may not know how to effectively argue against it.

We also know that although secular changes in diet can shift population averages over time, the heritability of height is pretty high: most estimates end up at about 0.8. If your parents were short, getting adopted into a tall family is not going to help you become taller.

Height is a highly polygenic trait and no single gene controls more than a few percent of the variance. When people say that we don't know the "genes for height", that's what they mean, not that the jury is still out on whether height has any genetic basis at all.

Years ago, I read an article in a magazine while waiting to be seen by a doctor. It talked about a study in a culture that valued boy children over girls.

Boys, especially oldest boys, got treated consistently better than girls. They were more likely to be fed their favorite foods. If they didn't feel well, they saw a doctor now whereas there was more often a "wait and see attitude" with girls. This meant boys were more likely to see a doctor several hours sooner, such as in the evening rather than waiting until the following morning.

This was not a case of girls being treated abusively. It was just a case of boys being somewhat pampered.

The difference in outcomes could be measured in terms of mortality rates.

We don't know what all genes contribute to height difference. We do know that underfeeding people will stunt them. Girls around the world seem to constantly be on a diet for fear of being too fat.

We don't know how much female height is being suppressed by cultural factors and we also don't know if cultural factors suppressing height might have intergenerational impact, even influencing genes by gender.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder about such things. I know for a fact it is enormously hard to have a meaningful discussion about such things on the internet, no matter how scientific the audience in question imagines they are. People are quick to dismiss such suggestions.

I've seen ridiculously biased statements about gender on HN upvoted to the top position in a discussion and heartily agreed with. It rapidly becomes a hostile environment where it doesn't feel safe or in any way productive to point out glaring flaws in such remarks.

Perhaps you could get some women to a similar level as men by giving them hormones from an early age (I don't know), but even then I think it would be a stretch to say "see, it is all cultural, we are denying those girls their hormones".

No it's not, and if you think that you are misreading it.

The general point of ML ethics is that a machine learning system should not reinforce bias caused by historically biased training data. This is good statistical practice, but unfortunately often gets lost in the "magic AI" bubble.

Avoiding this is like saying "a salary of $110K/year makes you a rich person". It's sort of based on something true (it does put you in the the top quartile of US earners), but is completely useless without correcting at least for location and number of dependants.

That's what ML Ethics is about.

> I've seen smart tech people unable to say that men are on average taller than women because (I believe) they were afraid to say that some "favorable" outcome (tall) was a result of some component that could be genetic.

So you've taken that dumb argument and said all ML ethics arguments are the same?

When I think of "biased training data", I think of data that systematically misrepresents reality. Like say taking the prevalence of news reports as a proxy for the prevalence of what's being reported on.

In contrast, the AI ethics people seem to use that term to mean data that doesn't reflect just (as opposed to unjust) causality.

I think there's a deeper issue, which is summed up in the saying "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure": simple correlation-finders - which is what current ML/AI models are - are not fit for the purpose of building control loops. And the "ethics" people are trying to paper this over by manually fixing up all the correlations that people notice aren't (or shouldn't be) casual.

The reason for that is almost entirely the same as your example of biased training data ("taking the prevalence of news reports as a proxy for the prevalence of what's being reported on").

CEOs from large US companies get reported on the most in English language press. Therefore searching in English for "CEO" finds those people.

The reason for that is almost entirely the same as your example of biased training data ("taking the prevalence of news reports as a proxy for the prevalence of what's being reported on"). »

But the CEO essay / example isn't about making search results reflect whatever the real distribution is. It's about making them match arbitrarily chosen statistics explicitly in an attempt to influence how people respond to it.

.

From the essay: "However, these datasets reflect the biases of the society in which they were created and the systems risk re-entrenching those biases.". That's not talking about trying to correct for systematic error a dataset that doesn't reflect what CEOs actually look like, that's talking about CEOs actually not looking like what they should look like; and about manipulating results in support of the social goal of changing what is to be closer to what they feel should be.

Which isn't even really about AI. It's about the proposed feedback loop (CEO demographics) -> (what people think of when they hear "CEO") -> (what kids want to be when they grow up) -> (CEO demographics) and deliberately manipulating that first step in pursuit of a specific social goal. The use of AI is incidental.

Actually I think there are lots of articles about female CEOs, as female CEOs will be more likely to be written about than male CEOs ("the top female CEOs fo 2021" and so on, there are bound to be countless such articles).

that statement is just incompatible with the basics of natural selection.

That's an explanation for why top talent are usually men, but the lesser ones are usually men too.

( + I was it was an explanation of a study)

Where is the linked article claiming this? Your post seems like complete derail of the article discussion for the purposes of making broader political points. [insert hn caveat about being more nuanced in potentially more flamebait topic]

"Should" is the operational word here. It is a normative decision that these (protected in many jurisdictions) classes should not receive any different treatment due to membership in the class. I agree with this goal, it seems you do not? Or are you objecting to a normative decision being disguised as a descriptive one? In that case I think it is largely a straw man, it's not how most people actually think.