> LeCunn calmly and rationally explained that a particular model produced biased results, and that that this was due to the bias in its training data.
But this claim is certainly not necessarily correct, and he shouldn't have been so confident about it. Any part of a system can contribute to bias and that includes the model design, not just the data. If they want the system to work then they need to actually demonstrate it works, not just say it could with X change without testing that.
Though I remember people arguing it didn't work properly at the same time they were saying it was evil (because it contributed to surveillance). Which is odd because if you don't want it to exist, you shouldn't want it to work either.
But this claim is certainly not necessarily correct, and he shouldn't have been so confident about it. Any part of a system can contribute to bias and that includes the model design, not just the data. If they want the system to work then they need to actually demonstrate it works, not just say it could with X change without testing that.
Though I remember people arguing it didn't work properly at the same time they were saying it was evil (because it contributed to surveillance). Which is odd because if you don't want it to exist, you shouldn't want it to work either.