iNow

What might we do with this? What might be some risks?

You’re being lied to, brother… unless it is you intentionally lying to others. You should stop doing that. Meaningless question since the German army aren’t throwing unwilling troops and prisoners into killing neighboring citizens like worthless cannon fodder.

Fair and safe are subjective. In something like 17 other threads, one proposal was to eliminate gender criteria altogether and have merit based qualification thresholds for competitive divisions and call it done. Plus, let us recall that this has nothing to do with racist whiteboards (tho the fear and panic about it does seem similar). Yes, this. I guess we’re up to 18 threads now.

I’m tired of all this extremism trying to make things better and not be snarky while doing it. When will this madness end!?!

It's unlikely to eliminate that job, just change it. Someone must prompt the model with topics and general framing of the subject first. Lots of blacksmith jobs were lost with the invention of the automobile, but far more new jobs were created... The AI is a bit like eye-glasses for the human mind. It's going to focus things, but not necessarily destroy. Time will tell.

How does Ketanji Brown Jackson fit within this narrative?

Gotta keep owning the libs /derp

I wonder who taught them how. Also, do avoid the stuff made from inputs any bulls provided.

Objectively? No Subjectively? Maybe

Or more practiced at forgiveness

It already happened over 70 years ago, but you can continue believing any ridiculous silly thing you want for as long as you want. The science remains valid and true whether you accept / believe in it or not. So dumb

It’s call acceptance, with a dab of self confidence and kindness toward others as a standard operating procedure.

I appreciate where you're coming from Studiot in terms of "data is data, that's all." I am sympathetic to this purist view, but also have some concerns with the rigid, dogmatic, de-contextualizing nature of it. Specifically, we are WELL aware of multiple issues with poor data collection methods, biased filters for what to include/exclude, and how past experience isn't necessarily a fit for current circumstances. In math, we work with the data we have. End program. The math is right if it aligns with the data. Done. Dusted. Time to move along... In the natural sciences, however, we must acknowledge up front where there are faults and strengths in that data, where it may be helpful/applicable and where it is not, and where we must be extremely cautious to avoid making hasty generalizations based on it. I also share your concern with silly comments like "8% and 10%" which are basically meaningless without qualifiers. We share the understanding that qualifiers are needed to correctly use any data set. Basically, I imagine we mostly align and agree on nearly all of this, even though the text exchanges above suggest otherwise. #olivebranch

I’m not in the habit of making broad sweeping generalizations. Details matter.

To the best of my knowledge, many states and jurisdictions don’t even bother reporting their incidents so the database has a bit of a sampling / selection bias.

So are millions of my fellow citizens

Maybe your “friend” can help?

I’m the US, a persons body weight is likely treated as PII and personal / confidential… and we barely keep records on police induced deaths… on purpose / by law. A better question might be “where can I find the most reliable data on these topics” before asking how best to query it.

Is not the goal to have equality in learning situations, at least in terms of opportunity and experience?

I believe those people are called writers

It’s far easier to manufacture rage and get our Italian friends riled up than to properly represent what the paper actually says. Tucker Carlson, and right wing media more broadly, are particularly good at removing context, misrepresenting things, and generating very intentional and specific emotional responses in audiences.

You need to do a better job at framing your query, and likely warm up the bot with some foreplay questions. “Hey Bot - Who were some great mathematicians who did amazing work with triangles and circles? Oh, okay. And how would PersonX you just named answer this question? Thanks. Are there any other answers that seem plausible given the inputs I provided earlier, but which are more likely to be incorrect according to PersonX?”

After a lifetime of watching human interactions, I feel that the same conclusion applies equally to us.

You seem new to this topic about AI perpetuated bias in hiring, health, and academic admissions so I’ll show grace and ignore your condescending tone in response to me as someone extremely well versed in it. Appropriate? No. Historically selected? Yes.