- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- latestagecapitalism@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Actually, what if slavery wasn’t such a bad idea after all? Lmao they never stop trying to resurrect class warfare and gatekeeping.
That image reminds me a meme from “Scientific diagrams that look like shitposts”. It was titled something like “Mask of Damascus(?)/Triagones(?) - Acquire it (from a prisoner(?)) with a scimitar!”
Woaw, we skipped right from diversity hiring to phrenology hiring without wasting a single beat. Boy has the modern world become efreceint.
At least high variance means the possibility of an opposite swing (this is cope)
this should be grounds for a prison sentence. open support for Nazism shouldn’t be covered by free speech laws.
But what if bias was not the reason? What if your face gave genuinely useful clues about your probable performance?
I hate this so much, because spouting statistics is the number one go-to of idiot racists and other bigots trying to justify their prejudices. The whole fucking point is that judging someone’s value someone based on physical attributes outside their control, is fucking evil, and increasing the accuracy of your algorithm only makes it all the more insidious.
The Economist has never been shy to post some questionable kneejerk shit in the past, but this is approaching a low even for them. Not only do they give the concept credibility, but they’re even going out of their way to dishonestly paint it as some sort of progressive boon for the poor.
But what if bias was not the reason? What if
your face gave genuinely useful clues about your probable performancewe just agreed to redefine “bias” as something else, despite this fitting the definition of the word perfectly, just so I can claim this isn’t biased?
Is that…an AI generated image?
I remember when stuff like this was used to show how dystopian china is.
I haven’t heard of academics and/or media from China advocating for applications of phrenology/physiognomy or other related racist pseudosciences. Have you?
Haven’t you heard? Palantir CEO Says a Surveillance State Is Preferable to China Winning the AI Race.
Trump’s current Science Advisor (who was selected by Peter Thiel) gave an interview back in 2019 where he kept insisting the U.S. was at a disadvantage to China in the AI race bc we didn’t have access to the level of surveillance data China had (which it turns out, is possible thanks to a surveillance system we fucking created and sold to them). He also used this point to argue against any regulations for facial recognition tech in the U.S. because again, it would put us at a disadvantage.
But don’t worry, because the goal is to have an authoritarian surveillance state with “baked in American values,” so we won’t have to worry about ending up like China did with the surveillance tools we fucking sold them.
I’m not sure what values he’s claiming will be somehow baked into it (because again, we created it and sold it to China). My mind conjures up a scenario of automatic weapons and a speaker playing a screeching bald eagle, but maybe we’ll get some star spangled banner thrown in there too.
“If he’s black, get him out of here”
The study claims that they analyzed participants’ labor market outcomes, that being earnings and propensity to move jobs, “among other things.”
Fun fact, did you know white men tend to get paid more than black men for the same job, with the same experience and education?
Following that logic, if we took a dataset of both black and white men, then used their labor market outcomes to judge which one would be a good fit over another, white men would have higher earnings and be recommended for a job more than black people.
Black workers are also more likely to switch jobs, one of the reasons likely being because you tend to experience higher salary growth when moving jobs every 2-3 years than when you stay with a given company, which is necessary if you’re already being paid lower wages than your white counterparts.
By this study’s methodology, that person could be deemed “unreliable” because they often switch jobs, and would then not be considered.
Essentially, this is a black box that gets to excuse management saying “fuck all black people, we only want to hire whites” while sounding all smart and fancy.
The goal here is to go back to a world where such racial hieraechies are accepted but without human accountability. This way you are subjugated arbitrarily but hey the computer said so, so what can we do about it?
Not April fool’s or the onion? What the fuck?
The Economist has a tendency to put out articles seemingly designed to make conservatives bust nuts through their trousers at mach 4
Is Lucifer’s Poison Ivy destroying the fabric of civilization as we know it?
I’m not sure we’re going to make it y’all.
Everyone is kind of focusing on the hiring part, which is incredibly nazi already, but they’re saying for lending too. Fucking yikes.
How revolutionary. They’re going to upend the world of finance by trying to give loans to people who can’t structurally afford to pay them back in all likelihood? Isn’t that the entire playbook for wage slaves to those who are otherwise of sound mind and body?
Maybe they try to just continue with the current (awful)status quo without the psuedoscience? Course then they’d lose out on the fascism.
Measles, theocratic government, phrenology: everything old is new again.
![The Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/14f5a0b4-82b6-498d-a689-36c2824dd296.png){kind=link}