SHARE

Microsoft released an artificially intelligent chatbot named Tay on Twitter (TayandYou) in March 2016, which proceeded to generate various Twitter racist, alt-right, and neo-Nazi rants in under 24 hours. Artificially intelligent chatbots use information provided by other users to understand appropriate conversational content and procedures. Because of an apparently sizeable community of far-right Twitter users, Microsoft’s Tay-bot was quickly baptized in sanitzer, with much information regarding her tweets being buried. 

After Microsoft’s almost laughable mistake, another case of artificial intelligence committing acts of racism quickly after. Beauty.AI, an “international beauty contest judged by artificial intelligence.” A program was given over 6,000 contestants and was made to choose a “top 44,” and over 30 were white. The remaining amount of winners were either Asian or Indian, but no contestants from Africa were admitted as attractive by the A.I’s standards. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Is AI RACIST? Robot-judged beauty contest picks mostly white winners out of 6,000 contestants

Artificial intelligence is consistently discriminatory because of algorithms employed by programmers. When Google was asked why results for “babies” and “hands” depicted only white babies and white hands, Google stated that its results were “a reflection of content from across the web, including the frequency with which types of images appear and the way they’re described online” and are not connected to its “values”.

Artificial intelligence possesses racially specific tendencies because race-related matters are a real thing that exist. There are important matters and legitimate questions that deserve to be delved into. People on the internet recognize the difference between racial collectives, and the white identitarian movement, which is fuelled by conviction that there are physiological, psychological, and cultural disparities between populations that have evolved from significantly different environments. When artificial intelligence, then, is engineered to gather information from the contemporary American culture, a degree of racial realism should be expected on behalf of the A.I. 

Theoretically, if a machine was engineered that was capable of generating intelligent, thoughtful insight into a situation, and was granted insight into the biological differences between human phenotypes, it would understandably incorporate that information into its foundational premises. The only way to “make” artificial intelligence non-racist is to actively censor information that could be applied in a discriminatory manner. As such, the regressive left must ask itself, are the actual observable difference between human populations, or is it a human obligation to ignore such differences in favor of “equal rights?” Although reality leads on to acknowledge the former, social justice warriors and cultural Marxists are nearly unilaterally rallied around the latter argument. 

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com Like my content? Consider buying me a cup of coffee! Squawker Media is a grassroots media outlet comprised of independent journalists and are in desperate need of support to keep this cause going. I appreciate all of my readers, as I would be nothing without your loyalty or support.

  • Nathaniel Trilby

    I have said it before and I shall say it again, if you want an anti-racist AI, you would need to make it incapable of recognising patterns and distributions, or at least incapable of recognising them outside of particularly flawed contexts.
    My question is simple, which is more important; human advancement and universal eudaimonia, or egalitarian dogma and biology denialism?
    Because let me just say now, making an AI which functions on faulty data is not gonna end well.
    Wouldn’t it be better to create an AI with an ethical framework to balance out with race realism, rather than an AI with a fundamentally broken perceptive capability?

    • Joe Brzozowiec

      It would, but ethics and morals are subjective. If world peace and a global moral/ethical code existed, then it’d “work”

      Until then, someone is gonna find something to have an issue with

      Not against your point, just making observation of it compared to the world we live in now