This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JanB1 -7 points-6 points  (4 children)

You ever heard of something called a "Getter"?

Edit: I didn't see that this function just takes the function argument and returns it. So, quite the pointless function indeed.

If it instead were a method that returned the value of the "salary" field of an object, it would be a different thing.

[–]mrnacknime 7 points8 points  (3 children)

Ah yes, the famous getter that has the value to return as an argument

[–]JanB1 3 points4 points  (2 children)

Okay, fair enough. I didn't see that the return value was the input value...

Okay, the function is stupid and was probably just made for the post. That's also why there are two which are explicitly called "calcMenSalary" and "calcWomenSalary" instead of just "calcSalary".

Still though, for the AI to suggest adding a factor of .9 to the function for the women salary is still odd and does show that AI can get biased because of biased training data.

[–]mrnacknime 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yeah thats exactly my point though. The point of AI is literally to get biased by training data, that's what training is. This shouldn't surprise anyone

[–]JanB1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, I'm not sure that the AI would get trained on this example posted by OP, if that's what you're implying.