New research shows driverless car software is significantly more accurate with adults and light skinned people than children and dark-skinned people.

    • JasSmith@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, in fact. This has been a huge challenge in photography algorithms for decades.

      HP cameras couldn’t detect black people in 2009: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/12/22/hp.webcams/index.html

      Google classified black people as gorillas in 2015: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai

      Zoom had issues with black faces and dark backgrounds in 2020: https://onezero.medium.com/zooms-virtual-background-feature-isn-t-built-for-black-faces-e0a97b591955

      A quick primer in colour: recall that light colours reflect more light than dark colours. This means image recognition devices relying on cameras using standard spectrums (i.e. not infrared) receive less light into the sensor when pointed at someone with dark skin. The problem is constant, but less pronounced depending on the background. That is, a black person against a white background would be easier for an algorithm to identify as a person than said black person against a mixed or dark background.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        All of those had issues for the sensors and recognition aoftware because their data set to determine what a face is was mostly white people.

        Just because something is harder doesn’t excuse then for not putting in the effort to get it right.

        • typhonaut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not necessarily effort. Data can be expensive and difficult to obtain. If the data doesn’t exist then they have to gather it themselves which is even more expensive.

          I agree that they should be making sure they can account for both cases as much as possible. But you have to remember that from the frame of reference of the model being trained and used in these instances, the only data they’re aware of is the data they were trained on and the data they are currently seeing. If most of the data samples in the entire world feature white people 60% of the time it’s going to be much better at recognizing white people. I don’t think anyone is purposely choosing to focus on white people; I think that those tend to be the data samples that are most easily obtained or simply the most prolific.

          I also think we need to take into account quality of data. As mentioned before, contrast plays a big role in image recognition. High contrast with background results in, on average, better data samples and a better chance of usable data. Training models on data that is not conclusive on ambiguous can lead to ineffective learning and bad predictive scores.

          I don’t think anyone is saying this isn’t a problem but I also don’t believe that this is a willful failure. I think that good data can be difficult to get and that data featuring white people tends to have easier time using image recognition successfully.

          Someone else mentioned infrared imaging, which is a good idea but also more money and adds an extra point of failure. There are pros and cons to every approach and strategy.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Cost being used as an excuse not to expand the data set to represent all types of people is just excusing systemic racism and other discrimination. For example, if the system requires two arms for it to recognize a person that is also a problem, because a person comes in a wife variety of shapes, sizes, and colors.

            If the system can’t handle that then it doesn’t regocnize people. If it costs too much to do right, then that means they can’t afford to do it at all.

        • JasSmith@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In some cases the data sets were only white, but engineers have been cognisant of this issue for decades so I don’t think that’s as common as you might believe. More frequently it’s just physics.

          As for “putting in the effort,” companies are doing this, to their detriment. Ensuring that a small proportion of their customer base has a perfect experience is very expensive. In business the calculation between cost and profit is very important. If you’re arguing that companies should provide unprofitable products so that your sensibilities can be assuaged then I disagree. No company has a duty to provide a product to you.

          • snooggums@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ensuring that a small proportion of their customer base has a perfect experience is very expensive.

            We are talking about that portion of the population being hit by cars.

          • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No company has a duty to provide a product to you.

            A company making driverless cars damn well does have a duty to make sure their program doesn’t run over children.