They complain that the models assign too many preeclempsia to black women (I had an ex who was a midwife so yup, I know what it means): what's bad about that?
Anyway, let's consider I missed something and it's actually a "racist" model.
What about women?
> Similarly, consistent exaggeration of the majority gender aligns with previous findings that LLM outputs can skew toward gender stereotypes in health care.
What stereotype? That only biological women do lactate? That only biological women can get pregnant?
To me TFA --and it's not clear why it gets upvotes on HN-- is at approximately the same level as the published study in a serious publication about how dogs from heterosexual men were more likely to rape other dogs than dogs belonging to women or trans.
It was a fake study, made on purpose to show how badly woke academia did become. And it got published, highlighting how crazy woke academia and research papers had become.
From the summary I'm reading here, it sounds like we're deep into woke-signalling territory.
And as a sidenote, I'd say that when the study begins with: "The research – “Evaluating the Potential of Reasoning Large Language Models to Perpetuate Racial and Gender Disease Stereotypes in Health Care”, ", there's a problem already.
The examples in TFA are more than weak.
They complain that the models assign too many preeclempsia to black women (I had an ex who was a midwife so yup, I know what it means): what's bad about that?
Anyway, let's consider I missed something and it's actually a "racist" model.
What about women?
> Similarly, consistent exaggeration of the majority gender aligns with previous findings that LLM outputs can skew toward gender stereotypes in health care.
What stereotype? That only biological women do lactate? That only biological women can get pregnant?
To me TFA --and it's not clear why it gets upvotes on HN-- is at approximately the same level as the published study in a serious publication about how dogs from heterosexual men were more likely to rape other dogs than dogs belonging to women or trans.
It was a fake study, made on purpose to show how badly woke academia did become. And it got published, highlighting how crazy woke academia and research papers had become.
From the summary I'm reading here, it sounds like we're deep into woke-signalling territory.
And as a sidenote, I'd say that when the study begins with: "The research – “Evaluating the Potential of Reasoning Large Language Models to Perpetuate Racial and Gender Disease Stereotypes in Health Care”, ", there's a problem already.
Are taxpayers dollars funding this?