New research from University of Limerick has found gender bias in the workplace could be replicated in interactions with artificial intelligence.
The study, co-authored by Dr Mary Hausfeld of UL's Kemmy Business School, examined whether the way Artificial intelligence (AI) assistants are presented influences how people treat them in a workplace setting.
Researchers placed 189 workers in a virtual reality office and asked them to complete work-related tasks with different AI assistants, including human-like agents presented with either male or female appearance.
Participants were then given real money to divide between themselves and the AI assistant for completing the tasks, allowing the researchers to recreate a real-world transaction and examine how much people were willing to pay AI for its work.
AI agents with a female appearance were paid less than their male-presenting counterparts, despite using the same underlying technology, according to the research.
Isn’t the modern approach to gender that gender is a completely arbitrary characteristic? So why not? For example, in my native languages every noun has grammatical gender. So for me the idea of intellect being male and a tire being female is completely ok.
Superposition really is just a mathematical notation to predict how the qubits will behave. It’s arguably nomological not ontological. No one has ever in history measured or detected or observed a qubit to be in this “third state.” It’s always found to just have a bit value of 0 or 1. The mathematical book keeping is just a way to predict that 0 or 1 and doesn’t describe a third state.
We need a new study to understand why we would pay a computer program and why we gave a gender to a bunch of bits.
dats rAIcist
Isn’t the modern approach to gender that gender is a completely arbitrary characteristic? So why not? For example, in my native languages every noun has grammatical gender. So for me the idea of intellect being male and a tire being female is completely ok.
It’s a computer, so it can’t be non-binary.
Sure it can, quantumn computers aren’t binary.
No they are binary. Qubits only contain 1 bit of information.
but that bit is not only 1 or 0, which means that a qubit isn’t binary.
It is only a 0 or 1. A qubit has never been observed to be anything else.
True, but they have the third state of superposition giving them a total of 3 possible states; 0, 1 and both simultaneously
Superposition really is just a mathematical notation to predict how the qubits will behave. It’s arguably nomological not ontological. No one has ever in history measured or detected or observed a qubit to be in this “third state.” It’s always found to just have a bit value of 0 or 1. The mathematical book keeping is just a way to predict that 0 or 1 and doesn’t describe a third state.
There are analog computers, there were experiments with 3-stage bit computers…