FILE PHOTO: Dr. Taylor visits with patient at Penn Dermatology Clinic in Philadelphia - Alphabet Inc's Google told Reuters this week it is developing an alternative to the industry standard method for classifying skin tones, which a growing chorus of technology researchers and dermatologists says is inadequate for assessing whether products are biased against people of color.
"We are working on alternative, more inclusive, measures that could be useful in the development of our products, and will collaborate with scientific and medical experts, as well as groups working with communities of color," the company said, declining to offer details on the effort. The company later gave similar https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A32_1Dwuh8JmmilCvKwosgQJj8M1Q3kT/view warranties that skin type would not noticeably affect results of a feature for filtering backgrounds on Meet video conferences, nor of an upcoming web tool for identifying skin conditions, informally dubbed Derm Assist https://blog.google/technology/health/ai-dermatology-preview-io-2021. The late Harvard University dermatologist Dr. Thomas Fitzpatrick https://jamanetwork.
Technology companies, until recently, were unconcerned. Unicode, an industry association overseeing emojis, referred to FST in 2014 as its basis for adopting five skin tones beyond yellow, saying http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2014/14213-skin-tone-mod.pdf the scale was "without negative associations."
The judgment of the raters is central. Facial recognition software startup AnyVision last year gave celebrity examples https://arxiv.org/pdf/2009.07838.pdf to raters: former baseball great Derek Jeter as a type IV, model Tyra Banks a V and rapper 50 Cent a VI.
It's ok, white skin does need more care, it can't afford any colored mark.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: Newsweek - 🏆 468. / 52 Read more »
Source: Reuters - 🏆 2. / 97 Read more »
Source: PreventionMag - 🏆 141. / 63 Read more »
Source: SELFmagazine - 🏆 478. / 51 Read more »