According to Google, is it a black man’s job to be a “Happy White Woman”? Why AI is biased and racist, and why it should not be trusted!
Okay, this post has so many potential pitfalls that break dancing through a minefield sounds like a better option. This is critical because AI is second-guessing our intentions, and people are recruited, fired, matched, unpaired, given, and refused credit depending on the whim of a silicon chip.
But first, let’s visit the “Happy White Woman.” To do so, open your browser and type “Happy White Woman” into the search box. Click the images, and the end effect should look like this.
When this image originally appeared in one of the internet’s dark corners, I wondered aloud, “What is Google trying to tell me…?” Is it true that a happy white woman’s pleasure is contingent on black men?
This is probably the case, however, it is more frequently shown in a genre other than that to which the images above appear to belong.
My favorite search engine, Go Duck Go, promoted the article I was reading. The “claim to fame” of a search engine is that it does not profile the searcher. And when I went to Go Duck Go and did the same search, the results were more “anticipated.”
So, what exactly is going on here?
Let’s take a look at the three most likely scenarios: Good, Bad, and Ugly.
The Good – The Radical Right’s proxy attack on Google is a search for “Happy White Woman.”
The second possibility (which is supported by Google SEO experts) is that Googling for “Happy White Woman” has become a “thing utilized by the Radical Right” to criticize Google for spreading Woke BLM propaganda. And, because the search “in and of itself” is a surrogate for Woke BLM propaganda, Google demonstrates this.
The assumption is that radical right-wing special interest organizations will seize power.
The concept is that radical right-wing special interest groups search for “Happy White Women,” click on interracial photos to bait the search bias and then use the search results as “Evidence” against Google to spread Woke BLM propaganda.
On the Google support site, the most popular defense SEO experts give is the “race-baiting” idea.
“Most of the time, it’s about the language used, the query’s exact phrase.” Because Google indexes the wording of other websites, its results often reflect cultural preconceptions or simply reflect how words are used in everyday life.
Remember that some of the people who are asking this question on social media aren’t asking it with the best of intentions, and are well aware that it’s a linguistic trick. This question has been raised numerous times by those who love race-baiting, as well as those who have been duped into being genuinely offended by a perceived racial bias.
Another point to consider: Google’s automated algorithms are subject to the same prejudices as the rest of society.
The idea that “Happy White Woman” is the product of race-baiting has a fundamental flaw from an algorithmic standpoint. Because it would either be a product of Google’s user profile (user-centric) or it would be widely available across all search engines.
Now, let’s look at the context of the search I was conducting:
- The colored population of the European country I was looking from was less than 12% – (I search locally by default).
- I am a white dude who is straight.
- By default, “do not track” is turned on.
- I always utilize a virtual private network (VPN).
- I was signed into Google using my corporate account, and my search history was entirely technical.
To summarise, nothing in my profile suggests that I am looking for a job based on race. Second, if “Happy white Women” is race-baiting – against Google, it would have been picked up by other search engines. Yahoo, Bing, and Go Duck Go, for example, which isn’t the case. In other words, the search term “Happy White Woman” appears to be racially prejudiced based on my profile search.
The Bad – Google is secretly pushing Woke BLM Propaganda!
This is the Radical Right’s favorite plot, and it’s also the major story from competing search engines like Go Duck Go and Microsoft Bing. The fact that Google openly supports BLM and other minority groups adds to the story. However, it seems implausible that Google would purposefully modify its search results to favor minority groups… This would have a far-reaching impact. As an example, it does not appear to influence searches such as “Great Scientist.”
Please remember that Google has been accused of racial discrimination against white individuals (men). “Women and people of color are discriminated against by Google’s algorithms.”
The truth is, if you can’t detect systematic bias in the dimensions you’re searching for, it doesn’t exist. To put it another way, Google may endorse BLM, but it hasn’t shown up in the search results.
The Ugly – AI (and not Google) are racist, biased, and should not be trusted.
Now, in my opinion. The phenomenon of “Happy White Woman” is a straightforward case of AI overfitting. Google is the market leader in AI-powered search, with a focus on sentiment rather than content. Simply put, Google tries to figure out WHY you’re looking for something before it figures out WHAT you’re looking for. Google’s AI-based system for determining a user’s INTENT is more powerful than the taxonomy indexes it employs to assess the search’s content value.
The meta semantic layer screams “IT’S ALL ABOUT RACE” after five years of identification legislation, and Google is quite effective at identifying that. If the words “White Women” are written in an interracial context the majority of the time, Google will pick it up, and the interracial photographs will be the most logical search result. As a result of data alone, with no hidden intent.
This also explains the distinction between Google and GoDuckGo results. GoDuckGo mostly uses taxonomies, whereas Google AI performs sentiment assessments.
Now, where Google goes a little crazy is in their belief that AI can predict human intents – and, as a result, over-analyze our request.
When I ask for a glass of water, the waiter brings me a stain remover because the previous five customers used the water to remove stains from their cloth. If I wanted to drink the water, the waiter’s good intentions weren’t going to help me.
If you search for “Happy White Women” for, say, an advertising campaign, the Google waitress fault is obvious, but the actual issue is everywhere else.
AI is nothing more than an emergent trait of multidimensional statistics; it is based on data that is bios and skewed in all the directions in which humans are warped. Patterns in the underlying data are the source of all AI emergent intelligence. As Google’s SEO specialists accurately point out, data with partiality and biographies
However, one significant difference between AI and humans is that humans can usually explain why they made a particular decision.
- An HR human can tell you why you were passed over for the job, but AI can’t.
- A banker can inform you that you were not approved for the loan. AI can’t make predictions.
- And unlike the non-match AI, the girl in the bar can tell you to fuc… off.
It’s possible that race-baiting is at the root of the “Happy White Woman” search’s controversies. Similarly, this essay used racial baiting to highlight the hazards of AI’s unconscious decision-making.
Sending an AI to do a human’s work is a bad idea…. Humans are succinct; AI isn’t.
AI should be our servants, not our overlords, in our society.