AI is sexist

Amazon ditches its HR-replacement AI for violating several of its assumptions:

Amazon.com Inc’s machine-learning specialists uncovered a big problem: their new recruiting engine did not like women.

The team had been building computer programs since 2014 to review job applicants’ resumes with the aim of mechanizing the search for top talent, five people familiar with the effort told Reuters.

Automation has been key to Amazon’s e-commerce dominance, be it inside warehouses or driving pricing decisions. The company’s experimental hiring tool used artificial intelligence to give job candidates scores ranging from one to five stars – much like shoppers rate products on Amazon, some of the people said.

“Everyone wanted this holy grail,” one of the people said. “They literally wanted it to be an engine where I’m going to give you 100 resumes, it will spit out the top five, and we’ll hire those.”

But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way.

The problem of the machine not spitting out results preferred by those using it is hardly new. And while the article claims that “gender bias was not the only issue” and that “problems with the data that underpinned the models’ judgments meant that unqualified candidates were often recommended for all manner of jobs” is almost certainly true, the problem is that Amazon did not give its AI a fair shake.

Amazon simply assumed that the undesired preference for male employees and “unqualified candidates” was a bug rather than the feature that it may have been. If the AI actually worked, then it would have undermined not only the concept of sexual equality, but credentialism as well. But instead of actually allowing the experiment to proceed and seeing if those unqualified male candidates recommended by the AI were successful employees, they chose to kill it on the basis of its violation of their preconceived ideas.

It’s too bad that they didn’t allow the experiment to play out, because the complete destruction of corporate credentialism is desperately needed in today’s increasingly competitive global marketplace. Then again, given how Amazon already dominates the online retail space, it’s probably just as well for their competitors that they turned away from the possible advantage the AI-HR system might have given them.

Jordan Peterson is a feckless coward

First he offers a ridiculous, long-winded justification for his “Kavanaugh should step down” tweet:

I asked myself a question, after reading these posts: “Is there an alternative to confirming or not confirming Kavanaugh?” When a choice appears starkly binary, a third path appears impossible, by definition — but might possibly still be worth seeking. I tried to place myself in Kavanaugh’s position, while generating a potential answer (and think that I can do so with some justification, having been publicly identified as reprehensible by many people—prominent journalists, activists, and academics among them).

I thought, “He can’t withdraw, prior to the nomination, because his reputation has been savaged so badly that withdrawal would not only mean loss of the Supreme Court nomination, but demolition of his entire career and future life.” So the only way for Kavanaugh was forward, through the FBI investigation, on to the nomination hearing, and the hope that he would be… what? Cleared? Not cleared, because it is too late for that, even given the favorable or at least not damning FBI report. A large percentage of the American public does not believe that he is an appropriate choice for the highest bench position in the land (51{b70b139db3e26271be493a29e5845e472849fb9ef3854e30dd0f16ed9e15a891}, according to NY Mag: https://nym.ag/2RwLUGt, citing a CNN poll). I’m not claiming, necessarily, that CNN’s poll is reliable. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that there is very widespread opposition to his candidacy, much of it generated not by people’s belief in his innocence or lack therefore but by their objection to the manner in which both parties handled the nomination process.

It’s not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn’t bode well for the stability and peace of the state (and perhaps–perhaps–there is nothing more important to preserve than that).

So I thought, “What might I do in such a position?” Withdrawing, prior to a full investigation, did not constitute an acceptable option. But it’s not clear that accepting the position, given the scale of opposition to my candidacy (“my,” in my simulation of his situation). So what if the FBI cleared me, I received the nomination, but then decided that it might be best for medium- to long-term peace and the good of the country if someone who shared my views but who had not been contaminated, rightly or wrongly, by the horrors of the nomination process in question be put forward as a candidate in my stead? Objections to that might include:

  • Perhaps the Democrat opposition would mount a similar campaign against my putative successor. But that would provide virtually unassailable evidence for the purely manipulative and political motivation of the accusers, forcing them to duplicate their strategy a second time. That would help reveal the machinations for what they were, in a manner that would be virtually undeniable.
  • Perhaps time is of the essence, and there would be no way to place another candidate of conservative leaning on the bench before the November elections. As they say, however: “act in haste, repent in leisure.” It might be acceptable to wait a month and test the democratic waters: if the Republicans do well in November, then their moves to nominate the candidate of their choice have been fully and evidently vetted by the electorate. That’s not a bad medium-to-long-term strategy.
  • Perhaps it is necessary, as an act of patriotism, to sacrifice personal ambition for the broader welfare of the country.
  • Perhaps that would also enable “me” (Kavanaugh) to regain the moral upper hand, in some permanent manner: with my name cleared, enabled in at least some manner to go on with my life, I could clear the way for the next, hopefully less contentious candidate.

So those were my ideas.

Then he threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue quit Twitter because he can’t take the well-merited heat.

 I was laboring yet again under the naïve misapprehension (and should have known better at this stage in the media war) that I could offer an idea—not a certainty—for consideration on that platform. I should have known better not least because I had already discussed the dangers of Twitter, for example, with my son, who insisted over many months that if I engage in contentious issues online that I should do so with a longer blog post, and link to that with Twitter. I should have known better because Twitter appears primarily to be a forum where errors are magnified and outrage and vitriol almost certain to emerge whenever uncertainty about motive manifests itself.

I honestly don’t know what to do with Twitter. It’s a very dangerous platform, and may well be doing more harm than good. But I have something approaching a million followers. Do I owe them a certain allegiance? Should I just abandon my account, or should I try to use it properly, whatever that means? I think it would be safer for me to leave Twitter and it would almost certainly better for my mental health and ease of mind and conscience.

Jordan Peterson has NO intention of quitting Twitter. He’s a fame whore and he’s just desperately trying to get his disappointed followers to buy into the “clarification” narrative.

UPDATE: I didn’t notice this on the first read-through. Jordan Peterson is also an ignoramus.

It’s not a good thing when there is general discomfort with the manner in which something as important as the naming of a new Chief Justice is undertaken. It doesn’t bode well for the stability and peace of the state (and perhaps–perhaps–there is nothing more important to preserve than that).

The charlatan who has been contemplating this matter so very deeply apparently didn’t spare one single thought for the fact that Justice Kavanaugh was not named Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The naming of a Chief Justice is indeed a significant government event, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the recent Kavanaugh confirmation.

The consequences of #METOO

Some of them are downright beneficial to society:

The Society for Human Resource Management published a report Thursday that documented the result of the movement that called on society to believe allegations of sexual harassment without question.

According to the study, nearly a third of executives report that they have “changed their behaviors to a moderate, great or very great extent to avoid behavior that could be perceived as sexual harassment.”

The CEO of the SHRM, Johnny C. Taylor Jr., explained that “some of the more concerning pieces of data that came out of the research are around the concern that there may be a backlash of sorts.”

“There were men who specifically said I will not hire a woman going forward,” he explained.

“Those who said they would hire a woman said they would not travel with one, and they, more importantly they would not engage in activities after business hours,” Taylor added.

Ironically, a genuine misogynistic woman-hater is considerably safer in the current environment than the most passionate confirmed male feminist. I don’t hate women, but I have never trusted them or believed in their doe-eyed innocence, which is probably why I’ve never had any problem in this regard even though feminists have hated me since 2001.

My habits are pretty straightforward. Don’t touch women and never initiate contact with them. Don’t talk to women outside the friends and family circle except to exchange the customary civilities or to do business with them. Don’t express attraction to women. Don’t betray any emotion or vulnerabilities to women. Don’t permit yourself to be put into situations where you are alone with women. Don’t allow your mind to be distracted by a pretty face or a shapely figure. When in doubt, walk away.

There are a few exceptions, of course, but they are women who have proved, over time, that they are individuals who can be trusted, and not merely in the context of male-female relations either.

At the end of the day, I just like Spacebunny a lot better than the rest of them, so it’s less a series of intentional behavioral guidelines than a lack of interest on my part.

That moment you realize they’re crazy

There is a story about Terence McKenna, upon being introduced at a conference by an academic who kept going on about the epic drug-taker’s amazing metaphors concerning other-dimensional elves, standing up and angrily shouting, “It’s not a metaphor! The elves are real!” At which point everyone in the audience suddenly realized that the famous techno-philosopher was not brilliant, he was not insightful, and his thinking was neither revolutionary nor creative, he was just crazy.

Owen Benjamin – by the way, you guys were right, the man is extremely funny – appears to have had a similar epiphany about the intellectual frauds known as Jordan Peterson and the rest of the New York Times-christened “Intellectual Dark Web”. From the transcript:

Brett Weinstein comes out swinging. I was saying WeinSTINE, they were saying it was WeinSTINE. They’re such fucking little weasels. When Brett was on Rogan, they said it was WeinSTINE instead of STEEN, but that was blatantly because of Harvey. Now they’re all saying WeinSTEEN. Bunch of fucking weasels. The Intellectual Douche Weasels. IDW. Intellectual Douche Weasels.

For those of you who are like, “oh, you’re turning on your own, Big Bear,” no, I’m not. I’m using criticism and social shame to try to alter someone’s behavior. I am not taking anyone’s rights or calling for anything.

Brett Weinstein says “Quite a good discussion of some IDW-” That’s Intellectual Douche Weasel. The Intellectual Dark Web, what a bunch of fags. All right, “reactions to the Kavanaugh confirmation and push-back. Warning, contains nuance. You may be triggered. If you are, avoid social media for 24 hours. Comfort and herb tea are available free of charge at a local safe space.”

These people. I can’t believe I was once rooting for them. That’s all right. See, that’s a mistake I expect you to get past with me. I made a mistake, I said you can trust a guy like Brett Weinstein to give pushback from a liberal stance and that’s how you can come up with the best- no! These people are undercutting the American republic and they can go fuck themselves. Don’t listen to a word out of their mouths.

I’m asking you to do that out of consent, by the way. I’m not forcing anyone or condemning or “taking down”. That’s so stupid. This is Charlie’s reaction, by the way, when I told him what Jordan Peterson has been up to. He hasn’t been taking it very well. You know, he looked up to him almost like a father figure and now he doesn’t even want to clean his room! He’s just throwing his toys everywhere… he’s spiralling.

By the way, you’re the one who cleans your room. It has nothing to do with Jordan Peterson. Everybody just needs a better Dad. That’s what it comes down to. The Baby Boomers sucked at being parents and so now no one knows what money is or how the government works.

What’s interesting to me about the Official Opposition’s sudden reaction to Jordan Peterson’s massive faux pas is the way they are desperately trying to reinforce his false “thought experiment” narrative.  What a great nuanced discussion! It’s just a thought experiment that demonstrates how nuanced and thoughtful ol’ Uncle Jordan is! He didn’t actually mean what he said. LOL! Don’t you know he just works out what he thinks in public? He’s been thinking about this issue for a long time, a long time, but he’s just working out what he thinks about it now in response to your reaction to his tweet, which you must understand was just a nuanced thought experiment that struck him amidst his contemplation on how best to clean someone else’s room.

No, it’s an extremely significant demonstration of how little character and integrity these weasels possess, as they join forces in order to cover up for Jordan Peterson’s mask slipping in public and revealing the real anti-American left-wing globalist face underneath. In fact, the main thing I took from all of this was the confirmation that Scott Adams is not on our side, after he rushed to accept the Crazy Christ’s “clarification”.

Think about this. Did Milo ever get this kind of protective public insulation for his public missteps? Did they ever extend the same benefit of the doubt to Kavanaugh or anything that President Trump has ever said? The Incestuous Douche Weasels know, they immediately recognized, that Peterson exposed himself badly on Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, and anyone who falls for this frantic ex post facto itachi kabuki is a self-deluded fool.

It is simply ghastly to observe how many Peterson cultists continue to delude themselves about the man, even after they saw him unmask himself. They have the situation precisely backwards. Peterson didn’t take one bad position after establishing many good ones, to the contrary, he very publicly took one good position early on that is very much against the flow of his entire personal and professional perspective.

Now we know the quo

Look what they made her do. The payoff was delivered as part of the quid pro quo that inspired Taylor Swift’s uncharacteristic political outburst.

Swift, 28, doubles down on her anti-Trump message and urges her fans to vote Democrat as she becomes most decorated female of ALL time at American Music Awards. Taylor was nominated for four awards on the night: Tour of the Year, Favorite Rock/Pop Female, Favorite Rock/Pop Album, and Artist of the Year, winning all four. Her four wins made her most decorated female in AMA history.

Also, she gets to stay in the closet for a little while longer. Which is nice. It’s interesting to observe that the award-winning Tour of the Year didn’t even manage to sell out on a regular basis.

No party for neocons

This fake Republican fake conservative is a perfect example of the anti-American US citizen for whom there is no longer any place in modern American politics:

Trump’s claim that he is going to “Make America Great Again” — after it has been betrayed by disloyal elites — is simply an echo, as it were, of Phyllis Schlafly’s conspiratorial rants.

The history of the modern Republican Party is the story of moderates being driven out and conservatives taking over — and then of those conservatives in turn being ousted by those even further to the right. A telling moment came in 1996, when the Republican presidential nominee, Bob Dole, visited an aged Barry Goldwater. Once upon a time, Dole and Goldwater had defined the Republican right, but by 1996, Dole joked, “Barry and I — we’ve sort of become the liberals.” “We’re the new liberals of the Republican Party,” Goldwater agreed. “Can you imagine that?”

The ascendance of extreme views, abetted in recent years by Fox News, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and the tea party movement, increasingly made the House Republican caucus ungovernable. The far-right Freedom Caucus drove House Speaker John A. Boehner into retirement in 2015. His successor, Paul D. Ryan, lasted only three years. Ryan’s retirement signals the final repudiation of an optimistic, inclusive brand of Reaganesque conservatism focused on enhancing economic opportunity at home and promoting democracy and free trade abroad. The Republican Party will now be defined by Trump’s dark, divisive vision, with his depiction of Democrats as America-hating, criminal-coddling traitors, his vilification of the press as the “enemy of the people,” and his ugly invective against Mexicans and Muslims. The extremism that many Republicans of goodwill had been trying to push to the fringe of their party is now its governing ideology.

That’s why I can no longer be a Republican, and in fact wish ill fortune on my former party. I am now convinced that the Republican Party must suffer repeated and devastating defeats beginning in November. It must pay a heavy price for its embrace of white nationalism and know-nothingism. Only if the GOP as it is currently constituted is burned to the ground will there be any chance to build a reasonable center-right party out of the ashes. But that will require undoing the work of decades, not just of the past two years.

In fact, an active embrace of white identity politics and so-called “know-nothingism” can solidify Republican political power and possibly even save America. But Max Boot knows that, because he wants to defeat the Republicans and destroy America. That’s why there is no longer any place for him in either the pro-America Republican Party or the anti-Israel Democratic Party. And that is why he and all the other NeverTrump neocons have to go back.

Max Boot@MaxBoot
I too will crawl over broken glass. To vote for Democrats who will act as a check on Trump’s unrestrained and unprecedented abuse of power.

Alavida Nimrata

Not that the UN matters, but it will be good to have Nimrata Randhawa out of both federal and state government.

President Trump has accepted Nikki Haley’s resignation as UN Ambassador, according to two sources briefed on their conversation. The timing of her departure is still unclear. She spoke out strongly in favor of Christine Blasey Ford after the university professor levied an accusation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Ideally, the God-Emperor won’t even bother to replace her. It will be interesting to learn if this is just part of the ebb-and-flow of politics or an element of a larger shakeup taking place.

Darkstream: the dirt is not magic

From the transcript of the Darkstream:

If you move 100 million Chinese settlers into Africa, what is the resulting society is going to be? It’s going to be Chinese. If you move one hundred million Hispanics and Africans and Asians into the United States, what is it going to be? Well, the only thing that we can be certain of is that it’s not going to be what it was before.

The dirt is the same, the physical geography is the same, but English colonists coming to the geography of North America did not become Indians. Their culture did not change, they did not suddenly start living in wigwams and dividing up into small tribes. You know, every single day we see this, and yet we see most of our government policies, we see most of the media narrative affirming something that we know to be false. Now, I’m encouraged by the fact that we’re starting to see the term Magic Dirt appear in many places that you wouldn’t expect to see it.

How to Lose an Argument

By Ben Shapiro. Code Pink’s National Director shows how easy it is to rattle Ben Shapiro and completely shut him down. The rampant hypocrisy in his contradictory approach towards his nation-state and towards the USA leaves him with an easy weakness that anyone can easily exploit. It’s also clear that both the Left and the Right have increasingly had it with all the Israel First activists in the US media. There is a very hard line between supporting Israel and supporting Israel at the expense of America, and Ben Shapiro is one of many in the US media who is observably on the wrong side of it.

It’s also a good example of how rhetoric trumps dialectic. “Apartheid Israel” is a rhetorical kill shot. Sure, one can make a reasonable dialectical argument that Israel is not an apartheid state according to the technical definition of the series of laws that were collectively known as the historical South African policy of apartheid from 1948 to 1994. But the very effectiveness of the kill shot indicates that whether the charge is technically true or not, the rhetoric tends to point towards the truth of the situation, especially since Israel has the legal equivalent of South Africa’s Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949, which was the first apartheid law, as well as a milder religious version of the Population Registration Act of 1950.

For example, the Code Pink woman could have easily pointed out that Israel observably practices religious apartheid, as the Supreme Court of Israel has ruled that even Jews or the descendants of Jews that actively practice any religion other than Judaism are not entitled to immigrate to Israel. The point is that it is relatively easy to expose even the smoothest, most-practiced wormtongues with sufficient mastery of rhetoric and dialectic combined with an awareness of their customary deceits and inconsistencies.

Regulate Big Social

It’s clear that they cannot be trusted to behave themselves:

Google exposed the private data of hundreds of thousands of users of the Google+ social network and then opted not to disclose the issue this past spring, in part because of fears that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage, according to people briefed on the incident and documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

As part of its response to the incident, the Alphabet Inc. GOOGL -1.02{1b4a17090ef37332a63a154d15b230452661fe8143e5800412403fcfe8797416} unit on Monday announced a sweeping set of data privacy measures that include permanently shutting down all consumer functionality of Google+. The move effectively puts the final nail in the coffin of a product that was launched in 2011 to challenge Facebook Inc. FB -0.05{1b4a17090ef37332a63a154d15b230452661fe8143e5800412403fcfe8797416} and is widely seen as one of Google’s biggest failures.

A software glitch in the social site gave outside developers potential access to private Google+ profile data between 2015 and March 2018, when internal investigators discovered and fixed the issue, according to the documents and people briefed on the incident. A memo reviewed by the Journal prepared by Google’s legal and policy staff and shared with senior executives warned that disclosing the incident would likely trigger “immediate regulatory interest” and invite comparisons to Facebook’s leak of user information to data firm Cambridge Analytica.

And for all the libertarians this offends, remember, a corporation is a government entity. Trading elected government rule for unelected corporate rule is not an improvement.