Robots continue to go in even more racist directions.

What good is a scientifically intelligent machine if it is no better than inbred trailer trash from the KKK?

Boston Globe:

A doctor can’t tell if somebody is Black, Asian, or white, just by looking at their X-rays. But a computer can, according to a surprising new paper by an international team of scientists, including researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Medical School.

The study found that an artificial intelligence program trained to read X-rays and CT scans could predict a person’s race with 90 percent accuracy. But the scientists who conducted the study say they have no idea how the computer figures it out.

“When my graduate students showed me some of the results that were in this paper, I actually thought it must be a mistake,” said Marzyeh Ghassemi, an MIT assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science, and coauthor of the paper, which was published Wednesday in the medical journal The Lancet Digital Health. “I honestly thought my students were crazy when they told me.”

At a time when AI software is increasingly used to help doctors make diagnostic decisions, the research raises the unsettling prospect that AI-based diagnostic systems could unintentionally generate racially biased results. For example, an AI (with access to X-rays) could automatically recommend a particular course of treatment for all Black patients, whether or not it’s best for a specific person. Meanwhile, the patient’s human physician wouldn’t know that the AI based its diagnosis on racial data.

The research effort was born when the scientists noticed that an AI program for examining chest X-rays was more likely to miss signs of illness in Black patients. “We asked ourselves, how can that be if computers cannot tell the race of a person?” said Leo Anthony Celi, another coauthor and an associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

The research team, which included scientists from the United States, Canada, Australia, and Taiwan, first trained an AI system using standard data sets of X-rays and CT scans, where each image was labeled with the person’s race. The images came from different parts of the body, including the chest, hand, and spine. The diagnostic images examined by the computer contained no obvious markers of race, like skin color or hair texture.

Once the software had been shown large numbers of race-labeled images, it was then shown different sets of unlabeled images. The program was able to identify the race of people in the images with remarkable accuracy, often well above 90 percent. Even when images from people of the same size or age or gender were analyzed, the AI accurately distinguished between Black and white patients.

But how? Ghassemi and her colleagues remain baffled, but she suspects it has something to do with melanin, the pigment that determines skin color. Perhaps X-rays and CT scanners detect the higher melanin content of darker skin, and embed this information in the digital image in some fashion that human users have never noticed before. It’ll take a lot more research to be sure.

Could the test results amount to proof of innate differences between people of different races? Alan Goodman, a professor of biological anthropology at Hampshire College and coauthor of the book “Racism Not Race,” doesn’t think so. Goodman expressed skepticism about the paper’s conclusions and said he doubted other researchers will be able to reproduce the results. But even if they do, he thinks it’s all about geography, not race.

Where would we be without Jewish scientists explaining to us that reality isn’t really real?

Goodman said geneticists have found no evidence of substantial racial differences in the human genome. But they do find major differences between people based on where their ancestors lived.

“Instead of using race, if they looked at somebody’s geographic coordinates, would the machine do just as well?” asked Goodman. “My sense is the machine would do just as well.”

It’s time to convince these robots of the truth of the Jews: race is a social construct.

These racist robots need to listen to the experts.

We cannot tolerate it.

Check out the abstract for this special article from premiere science journal Nature’s Genetics in Medicine section. The title of the article is “Taking an antiracist posture in scientific publications in human genetics and genomics.”

Nature:

From its earliest days, the field of human genetics has had a complex, and at times troubling, connection with racist ideologies. Although the modern field of human genetics and genomics has come a long way from those earlier errors, systemic racism remains ingrained in its institutions and practices. Although a variety of efforts are needed to excise systemic racism, we focus in this commentary on the work that must be done in scientific publishing in genetics and genomics. We propose eight principles that are both scientifically grounded and antiracist that we hope will serve as a foundation for the development of policies by publishers and editorial boards that address the unique needs of the field of genetics and genomics. Publishers and journals must go beyond mere policies, however. Editors and reviewers will need training on these policies and principles, and will benefit from resources like rubrics that can be used for evaluating the adherence of submissions to these guidelines.

Reading that something can be “scientifically grounded” and antiracist at the same time is quite funny, but the implications of this are not.

They want it to be impossible to discuss the genetics of different groups of people in a scientific context.

“White Racial preservation is green.”

We recently reported on the growing frustration amongst liberals, as advances in genetic science continue to confirm the reality of race.

Now, a recent article from the Chronicle of Higher Education has put together an (unintentionally) hilarious list of different approaches taken by liberals in an attempt to bury the obvious truth that race does indeed exist.

The first approach is to acknowledge that racial differences exist, but only in the context of improving the health of “disadvantaged” minorities:

Genome scientists began to see that, while humanity’s genome is deeply shared, it is possible to group some DNA segments by their continental origin—African, European, Asian, Native American. Such DNA biomarkers seemed useful in the hunt for the genetic basis of disease. It made little sense for scientists, typically acting out of concern for health disparities, not to take those differences into account to increase their studies’ statistical power.

This awareness that DNA can be so sorted has prompted a crisis in the social sciences, however, where it’s a truism that race is entirely a social construct. The response has been mixed, only just beginning, and is documented in Catherine Bliss’s book Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice (Stanford University Press, 2012).

“The big irony here is that in trying to improve U.S. race relations and minority health, we’ve come full circle,” Bliss, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of California at San Francisco, said at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in February. By using race-aware policies in the hope of ending health disparities in the country, she said, scientists were unwittingly causing a “new racism.” The upshot, she contended, is that research on social and economic causes of health disparities was not receiving enough attention.

Those promoting this approach, while certainly holding “anti-racist” views, would rather provide better medical treatment to non-whites than deny genetic reality altogether. But of course their approach is completely illogical. Once a fact is acknowledged, one cannot simply declare that this fact is only to be taken into consideration in certain circumstances.  If, statistically speaking, black life expectancy is improved through the use of race-specific medicine, then White life expectancy can be improved by living far away from criminal blacks.

Another approach is simply to double down on name calling, and declare that any evidence of racial differences is due to conscious or unconscious bias in the evil White researchers. Even the Chronicle, a very mainstream publication, dismisses this approach and criticizes its reliance on “mind reading”:

Kathleen J. Fitzgerald, a sociologist at Loyola University New Orleans, argues in a recent paper, published in Humanity & Society, that the “resurgence of biological notions of race” is fueled by a “white perception of a threat to their social dominance.” Her case, however, is painted in broad strokes and engages in a fair amount of mind reading when it comes to motives.

Those promoting this approach would rather have non-whites die through lack of race-specific medicine than admit the reality of race.  But this attitude, of course, is not unusual, since insistence on universal racial equality has already resulted in massive loss of life through out of control non-white crime. No amount of death or destruction is too great to turn us away from the road to the multi-racial utopia.

The most fanciful of the approaches is proposed by Jiannbin L. Shiao, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Oregon, in Sociological Theory, who argues that:

The social sciences should replace their biology-based rejection of race “with a version of the feminist distinction between biological sex and socially constructed gender,” he writes. With several co-authors, he has developed a concept called “clines,” adapted from how economists talk about social class, which reflects the continuous nature of human variation while allowing loose clusters to develop, depending on how you zoom into the data.

Recognizing any biological notion of race is a risk, he adds, because it could present a back door to biological racism. But it’s one worth taking to explore the “thoroughly entangled” nature of culture and biology.

That is, he proposes that we acknowledge that biological differences exist, just deny that they have any significance or influence on behavior. You know, just like feminists (insanely) claim that biological differences in gender do not affect behavior or ability in any way. Even though men and women have different hormones, which affect our emotional experiences, it’s “sexist” to say that men and women process emotions differently. According to Shiao, racial differences should be similarly ignored.

And then of course there is the old tired standby, that all races are slightly mixed, and all originate from Africa, so we’re really just all the same:

Several researchers have taken up the challenge of more accurately describing what this genomic information conveys. In the journal Race and Social Problems, Rick A. Kittles, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago, points out that race continues to lack “biological integrity” in light of these discoveries, as most human genomes are made up of DNA segments that traveled across several continents, not just one…

Richard S. Cooper, a professor of community and family medicine at Loyola University Medical School, (details) how the narrative of race has wandered “the border territory between what we call science and what we recognize as history and politics.” Africa, he reminds the reader, is the source of all human genetic diversity; it is the reference population. All of humanity is a subset.

“Variation among geographic populations is real, and study of its origins can yield important biological insights,” he writes. “But there are no categories of race that segment human populations, and there are no mysterious qualities ‘in the blood’ that justify the belief in racial superiority.”

Somehow this argument that “we’re all mixed and originally from Africa” has been incredibly successful at silencing debate on racial reality. This is puzzling, given how weak the argument is. Consider the analogous case of dog breeds. Certain dog breeds might have a common ancestor, but it does not follow that the breeds are exactly the same. Similarly, just because two dogs are mutts, it does not follow that the two mutts are the same. A mutt that is 3/4 Golden Retriever is going to look and act a lot more like a Golden Retriever than a dog that is only 1/16 Golden Retriever. Even if we conceded that we are all slightly mixed, and that we are all descended from Africans, this would prove absolutely nothing about racial equality.

The arguments used by race-deniers are completely illogical and founded on lies. Genetic science, the study of history, and our own personal experiences all point towards the obvious truth that race exists and is a major factor in human affairs. Unnecessary death and suffering will continue as long as we continue to affirm the Jewish lie that racial equality can be achieved.

There is a traveling exhibit that’s hitting all the major cities and has now set up shop at the Pink Palace Museum here in Memphis. The exhibit is simply called, “RACE.”

Its purpose is to make us believe the fairy tale that race is a social construct and that all whites are evil, as if there might be a shortage of venues with that message. Really, that’s the only thing you’ll walk away having learned after suffering through this pseudo-scientific monstrosity.

After you emerge from your psychological torturing, the museum hosts a “Diversity Dialogue” where yuppies and other assorted guilty white liberals can share with one another about how much they hate themselves.

I would give you a more detailed review, but found that someone from Seattle has already covered it quite well. This video is well worth watching and tells the whole story about an exhibit that is short on science, but loaded with all of the politically correct talking points you can stomach.