this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
254 points (88.0% liked)

Technology

59596 readers
3055 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You don't think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant? What's the lower bound on significance as you see things?

To be clear, it's obviously dumb for their generative system to be overrepresenting turbans like this, although it's likely to be a bias in the inputs rather than something the system came up with itself, I just think that 5% is generally enough to be considered significant and calling three times that not significant confuses me.

[–] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 9 points 6 months ago (2 children)

5/6 not wearing them seems more statistically significant

[–] tabular@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

The fact less people of that group actually wear it than do is significant when you want an average sample. When categorizing a collection of images then, naturally, the traditional garments of a group is associated more with that group than any other group: 1/6 is bigger than any other race.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

so if there was a country where 1 in 6 people had blue skin you would consider that insignificant because 5 out of 6 didn't?

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For a caricature of the population? Yes, that's not what the algorithm should be optimising for.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You don’t think nearly 1/6th is statistically significant?

For statistics' sake? Yes.

For the LLM bias? No.