There is only a single mention of anything even vaguely like what you're reacting to, which is the specific claim of an "intentionally faulty calculation as part of the computational RoboDebt program" in Australia. To jump from this specific (and AFAIK correct) claim to a "conscious decision by "the man" to purposely put certain groups down using AI" seems like quite a leap.

The article largely deals with unfortunate side effects of a combination of feedback loops, implicit bias, economics, and lack of technical understanding in the broader community -- quite the opposite of any "conscious decision".

Well, I think the preface leads with this statement, which does seem to indicate a fundamental bias in the thesis that’s overly political:

Second, AI is used to disproportionately benefit the privileged while worsening inequality.

The article talks a lot about the challenges of care delivery and how there appears to be systemic breakdowns in how patients are listened to and how demographics seems to lead to worse outcomes. These are all serious issues. It further states essentially that AI, at least learning based AI, learns what it is trained with and most training data indirectly encodes the various social biases that influence the data collection or what is collected in the data. The is true too.

However neither of these have to do with AI curing cancer. They seem more statements that AI won’t solve all social ills, which is absolutely true. But these don’t speak to given a positive cancer diagnosis can AI provide a route to curing an individuals cancer. I suspect the answer is “maybe,” but none of the social and political points made are why. It’s because cancer is very complex and we need a vector that AI can generate some solution in to treat any specific cancer. Since there are many many types of cancer and many many variants of those types, as well as per individual cancer genetic variability, it seems unlikely “AI will cure cancer,” but I think it’s very likely AI will make cancer treatment much more personalized, discover many new therapeutic agents, and accelerate human driven research. It is already used in generic immunotherapy, mRNA design, and other treatments. As tools and techniques become better, as well as our understanding of how to apply it, AI will help a lot.

Whether is a conscious decision by authorities is orthogonal to the point, it arguably even supports the article.

Good intentions with bad outcomes are still bad outcomes. Ignoring the trends is to ignore those marginalized by them even more.

Why is facts about how these systems hurt people leftist?

Just a few snippets that use language typically used by those on the further left with a bit of an agenda. I am kind of center-left myself, so I agree with some of the sentiment, but I tend to think that a lot of the issues they ascribe to purposeful, scheming evil actors are often just defects in how our society works on a macro scale.

- "AI is used to disproportionately benefit the privileged while worsening inequality"

- "the goal is to increase corporate and government revenues by denying poor people resources"

- “It is a pattern throughout history that surveillance is used against those considered ‘less than’, against the poor man, the person of color, the immigrant, the heretic. It is used to try to stop marginalized people from achieving power.”

- The same pattern is found in the role of technology in decision systems.

- "The goal of many automated decision systems is to increase revenues for governments and private companies"

- "here is already a clear pattern in which AI is used to centralize power and harm the marginalized."

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing these issues out, even if you think AI is merely an accelerant of existing social issues. And it's not necessarily a question of how left you are to believe so. Ultimately what's important is the outcome, and if the outcome is an increase in marginalization, then I think something should be done. Stopping AI is probably suboptimal but the alternative that preserves the rights of the marginalized is getting everyone to agree that society should be more fair, and in that context can you really blame people for espousing a belief they find more actionable or practical?

You’re just not clued into the lingo. This person is an ideologue and is trying to hide it somewhat but is failing to completely omit the use of language that reveals the leftist ideology they have been swimming in.

Few people on HN can read this kind of critique without short circuiting but it’s a valid critique and I would bet a good sum that if you looked into this author you’d find lots more direct evidence of promulgation of leftist ideology (critical theory)

I skimmed through this and it was obviously laden with leftist memes. It’s important to become literate in these, which aren’t simply about what they are saying at face value but an ideological network of ideas.

What you're saying is vague to the point of being malicious. You're poisoning discourse by labeling ideas as undesirable, but so broadly that you end up trying to smear the author instead.

I don’t know what you could be saying other than that caring about poor people or welfare recipients is a leftist meme. That was pretty much all of the “leftism” in this article.

The fact that the poster focuses on the term ("leftism") rather than on the substance is itself a red flag imo. It puts the discussion on a weird tripolar spectrum: you're either leftist, centrist, or rightwing (of which the poster is likely to posit themselves as a center, to avoid being called biased). I don't think it's terribly productive, and unless the article was calling for Bolshevik Revolution, I don't mind a certain bias. The fallacy here is that it's possible to come in with objective lens--it isn't.

No, there is no fallacy here. You’re just ignorant. There are several signifying phrases and terms used here that are commonly used by people who have absorbed critical theory ideology.

sure man, woke mind virus has ravaged my brain lol.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Unless you’re claiming you’re not ignorant and just accept the memes as non-biased. In which yeah your brain would be pretty ravaged if that were the case (tho I’ve never liked Musk’s characterization personally)

So by memes you’re referring to words and grammatical constructions less than ideas? My comment, which I don’t think you ever responded to (nothing wrong with that just saying), was calling out the fact that you didn’t directly refute the ideas present in the article and are instead fixated on their presentation. If you attacked the ideas directly, I feel you’d only find a few ways to attack them, and that the primary idea you’d be attacking would be sympathy for the poor and such. I think it’s a cop out to avoid directly criticizing popular (on this site) ideas by attacking their presentation.

You can start by noticing the explicit capitalization of the adjective “Black”

There are others but that is enough to bucket it in as someone who is dabbling in leftist memetics at a minimum

Truly my only response to your comments here is: wow.

Yes, you probably also have been led to think that these memes are just "being normal" but these are deliberate changes to the language which originated in academic programs of critical theory. See for example: https://cssp.org/2020/03/recognizing-race-in-language-why-we...

Tell me more, please

Could you please provide some examples?

Capitalizing Black, and using the word “privileged” to describe individuals without specifying what kind of privilege

> leftist bias that AI is already being used to [purposely] control and marginalize people

The recent Google Gemini image fiasco seems like a rather solid example of this being real.

Like most tools, it will be used by both oppressors and the oppressed around the world. The concern I have is that the prohibitive cost of building foundational models means that it will disproportionately benefit those with extreme resources at the expense of those without.

I guess they felt as if someone had to stand up for the oppressors!

What is data used for? To whom does it give power?

Everyone.

edit: It is clear that, even at the current stage of decent summarization, this is transformative tech that can 10x current workflows today.

Fox News has the same data access as everyone else. You want to qualify that statement perhaps?

Also, for the French example, it actually has nothing to do with AI.

The problem was that the calculation for housing (not food) welfare benefits changed and the migration to the new software that came with it went poorly.