User talk:Shift-3

Welcome!

Hi, Shift-3. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. KH-1 (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Wikipedia

Hi I am sorry but I reverted your changes to Machine ethics. The article was pretty bad already, but your edits made it worse.

Working in Wikipedia is not like writing an essay, where you kind of say what you want and throw a source behind that. Instead, we read what reliable sources say, and summarize them here. '

Please read through User:Jytdog/How to get a sense of how this place works. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main change I added is adding "algorithmic fairness," which is a new research topic in machine learning. I go through all the relative wiki and think this one is the most suitable one.

The original article only talks about robotics but doesn't cover anything about the algorithm ethics. So I reorganize the article to incorporate the fairness section.

All the new citations are recent academic papers and reliable fact reports on the machine learning bias, which is not relevant to Asimov's comments on robots.

Zafar, Muhammad Bilal; Valera, Isabel; Gomez Rodriguez, Manuel; Gummadi, Krishna P. (2017). "Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact": 1171–1180. doi:10.1145/3038912.3052660.
Artificial Intelligence’s White Guy Problem https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html
Machine Bias There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Pedreshi, Dino; Ruggieri, Salvatore; Turini, Franco (2008). "Discrimination-aware data mining": 560. doi:10.1145/1401890.1401959.
Identifying Significant Predictive Bias in Classifiers https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.08292.pdf
Dwork, Cynthia; Hardt, Moritz; Pitassi, Toniann; Reingold, Omer; Zemel, Richard (2012). "Fairness through awareness": 214–226. doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255.
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05807
Practitioners Guide to COMPAS http://www.northpointeinc.com/files/technical_documents/FieldGuide2_081412.pdf

-- Shift-3 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this note but it doesn't address what I wrote above... tell you what - how about just drafting content based on those refs above, summarizing them, and posting it on the Machine ethics talk page (Talk:Machine ethics) for review and discussion? Jytdog (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will do that. Thanks for the explanation. Shift-3 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I posted the content on the Machine ethics talk page (Talk:Machine ethics). If you get some time, please give me some feedback. Thanks. --Shift-3 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ethics of artificial intelligence to Machine ethics (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting and signing

Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]