you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The fact they don't even say what they consider to be a microaggression shows this is a con. Otherwise, they would give examples rather than the reporter having to get them from another source. Also claiming they can track implicit bias which is well known to be snake oil.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The fact they don't even say what they consider to be a microaggression shows this is a con.

Because it's whatever they want it to be, its whatever they want to label as unacceptable and train the A.I. to recognize, and the optics of actually describing this can easily be made to look dystopian, while they can just remain ambiguously woke by omitting the specifics.

You clearly don't have much knowledge about how this technology works, what they are describing here is absolutely trivial compared to technology that already exists and is used to target consumers with advertisements, chat, diagnose diseases from labs and scans, or the myriad other ways this technology is already being used.