I don't see where the panic is coming from, I'm almost certain Google, Facebook and several advertising agencies know I'm gay from my browsing history, and all that data is already made available to governments.
"I can't believe you're still seeing John! You know he's gay, right? I tested his profile picture - it came back 98%!"
The whole point of the LGBTQ movement was to let people decide for themselves what they are, not to label them based off what society says they ought to be.
The potential for ostracism is just too great.
Overconfidence doesn't change the probabilities of the rare, harmful events that they are predicting won't happen. But their bias against self-doubt does increase their willingness to bet against unprecedented events.. n=1001 safe observations (where E[payoff] > 0) cannot predict that the next will be catastrophic (E[payoff] = -inf, or at least absolute value >> O(N*E[payoff seen up till then])) with non-zero probability beforehand; the expected payoff would appear vastly different before the event than after. The bets they choose will reflect the way they underestimate the consequences of speculation.
Evidence of absence > absence of evidence, another way to put that is the weight of ¬valid(test) >> the weight of ¬¬valid(test), so we should not decide the test is invalid just because it's not yet invalidated.
My gut feeling is that the upper-bound of proven benefit (to individuals/society) of the test (even if ~99.99% accurate) << upper-bound of the harm (intentionally or not) - because 'invalidity' isn't a question of whether a test is always non-satisfiable, the burden of proof falls upon the one introducing it, rather than the one rejecting it.
So why can't they use that experience to make the same point against a AI bot labeler. Too much of a leap?
Individuals absolutely have to be free to determine who they are, and that means that society can only judge their determinations, not they themselves.
I will set aside my quibbles with the rest of of the package for another day, and simply extend you kudos for a well thought-out post.
If this isn't sarcasm/irony, what's your evidence for this conspiracy?
(Edit: Why is this comment downvoted? Is it frowned upon to ask for evidence for a conspiracy theory?)
Fully understand that priors != evidence. Which is why I'll state it's my belief, not ground truth.
The standard version of the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory states that the Frankfurt School, a group of European intellectuals, hatched a plot to bring down Western civilisation. If you believe this is the case, I have two questions:
- What works of the Frankfurt School have you read, and which do you think are congruent with what you are accusing them of?
- Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?
If you think this is not the case, then tell me who exactly "cultural Marxists" are, their origins, and what basis you have for your accusations. These are very basic questions which you should not have to reference another book to answer, though you can of course provide a reference to one as part of your answer.
>Do you engage in the anti-semitic element of the conspiracy theory?
>Oh, you don't toe the PC line? You must be a rayciswhitemale.
You're self-parodic at this point.
Apparently not being an anti-semite is being "PC"?
Have you ever considered that, oh I don't know, maybe it's just that people would like to live their lives in peace, the way they want, fucking whomever they want without bothering anyone else or being bothered in return? What on earth possesses you to attribute this to some sinister decades long underground plot?
If it actually works, it's not pseudoscience, it's just science. (Assuming you don't understate the variance in generated intelligence/sexuality/whatever distributions.)
The panic is being manufactured, probably for little more than grant money, recognition, and clicks.