Benutzerrezensionen

I've heard a lot about the various algorithmic failures around race. This is a good overview of the discussion that talks about some things I haven't seen before. When you see it put all together in one place it's pretty shocking.

At the same time, purely as a documentary this is kind of weak. It's sometimes a little muddled, and it sometimes stretches a point a bit too far. Some of the things it tries to fold into the narrative are less examples of technological racism and more examples of actual criminal behavior. There's a difference between slippery tech and actions that resulted in people going to jail.

Still, it's a compelling film.

Does it matter to any of the reviewers here that the claims made in this documentary have been debunked?

Fact: The darker ones complexation is the LESS likely that there is usable video or photos for investigators or prosecutors.

The makers of this film claim the opposite is the case, they claim there is a bias against persons with darker complexions -- when in fact that is not at all what the peer reviewed research shows.

Will get the criticisms out of the way first, because by and large this was a really well-made documentary.

It's minor, but wasn't sure why some interviewees were framed with so much headroom. Then again, Mr Robot did that and I never understood it there, and given that that was also concerned with themes of technology and surveillance, maybe there's some shared symbolism I'm not picking up on.

Some of the segments with the AI saying menacing things were a little cheesy, but overall brief at least.

There's also a sense that the documentary may cover a little too much in its 85-minute runtime. While I can admire its ambition in covering so many aspects of facial recognition software, its racial biases, algorithm discrimination, and so on, it does make for a documentary that jumps around a fair bit and not always smoothly... at least all the topics are interesting on their own.

But in the end, it covers important topics and presents compelling arguments about particular flaws and biases in technology. It does warn that this is something that if unchecked could become a serious problem, so I like the attempt to bring awareness to this issue before it completely spirals out of control.

It's well edited, features interesting interviewees and subjects, and ends on a little more hope than I was anticipating, which was a nice surprise. Overall, it's one of the better Netflix documentaries I've watched in a while.

Algorithms are not magical systems. At their core they are simply data. Feed your programs with rubbish or incomplete data sets, and you'll get rubbish or inaccurate outputs. What surprises me is not that this is happening with programs like facial recognition software; what surprises me is that the basics taught in any beginning programming class are somehow forgotten.

That said, this documentary feels incomplete. It seems to be one-sided, with lots of interviews with people who are against the use of AI.

But while the film-makers do an ok job of highlighting the dangers and inadequacies of AI systems such as facial recognition software, they failed to show what really is behind these glaring.blunders - was it some kind of knowing omission meant to create more biases, was it a case of software engineers creating something that they themselves don't understand and thus making a mess of things, or was it simply incompetence.on the part of many involved?

Who knows. And that's the problem with this film.

A compelling introduction to Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the non-technologist. Explains in part why Google AI technologists/ethicists Dr. Timnit Gebru, Dr. Margaret Mitchell, Tristan Harris, Dr. Samy Bengio all left Google when AI inequities were not subject to public debate.

Watch this documentary--love it or hate it, it will definitely make you think.

And the main point is that increasing what would have been called beta code even 10 years ago is being pushed out as production ready. As she pointed out with IBM once she pointed out the issue to IBM with their face recognition AI they added examples to their training set and increased accuracy across the board. But that indicates it was not properly tested in the first place. That argues for a more inclusive IT staff and better QA. So that shows their first argument against some merit but could be fixed without much difficulty. So the solution ought to be to fix not ban.

The second argument of what if our government becomes like China is flawed as well. The face recognition AIs are going going to get better even if we do not work on them here someone will. Anything useful can also be used as a weapon. So if the government does want to use face recognition they will just get it. Probably better to have a known working system than one bought hasily and rushed into place.

It is odd to they barely mention any AI or ML outside of face recognition despite face recognition being a small part of what is out there.

All in all might be good to get you to started on research of your own but mostly misdirected furry.

Full of bad information and misleading views. The only bias I could find was the one in the film. A toxic video to anyone in the field of technology.

I saw this without watching the trailer or reading any reviews or reading anything bah it and got pleasantly surprised. This documentary is very informative.

People who are against this documentary n pro facial recognition shud be aware that it is not what will AI do to us on its own, its what will the powerful do to us with the AI.

...and downhill from there on in.

Protagonist as the start good, open minded, genuine and a curious soul.

After that, angry people is my take. They should be happy the machine can't recognize them.

Because they want to do the same thing that the bias programmers are inadvertently doing except they want to rule the world as their point of view.

Netflix attempts less than subtle woke from all the wrong people, save the Protagonist at the start - change it to recognize you.

Or some people will go to no ends to be a part of things no matter what. Not me.

There are two major sins this documentary commits, being inaccurate and being boring.

The same, debunked points are put forward ad nauseam, repeating and repeating until you just wonder why wasn't this 20 minutes long? I have to be honest, I didn't finish it and I don't feel I would have really have come away with a different impression if I did.

This documentary shows exacly why we as the people cannot not be divided,and it shows the true enemy of western civilizations ,authoritarianism. We can not allow goverments to sell us the idea that we have to pay for safety with freedoms.

There´s little focus but very hyperbolic interpertation of the data when it came to racial profiling by the AI... just a whiff of "wokeness" that was digestible to me, but also caused the polarization on this review section.

The rest of the documentary is well produced, informative, and seriously eye opening and you should see it because any of the negatives at least for me dont even come close to the deeper understandig you get from practical examples you see around the world that are very scary.

.

It is so refreshing to see something coming out of America that is not crazy & ugly. A lot of the reviews here seem to think this documentary is about race. That is NOT what I got at all. It is about the slow & invisible erosion of human rights by those who control the technology & algorithms that are a feature of life now. This concerns all human beings. Wake up. This is how Hitler got away with it. Nobody wanted to know. This documentary has inspired me to investigate further and stand with others who are vigilant.

The general messages conveyed are powerful, and there's no denying that we urgently need to regulate a technology that has encroached into every facet of our lives - it's like letting people drive without introducing any traffic laws.

The execution of this documentary, however, is very underwhelming, to say the least. There are the usuals: catchy montages, TED-style interviews, news soundbites, and the most annoying of all - artificially created (pun intended) graphics of AI scanning data in a stereotypical digital font paired with silly sound effects which, unless the primary audience of this documentary is fifth graders, I don't understand why it's necessary to incessantly rehash them. And then there's the unimaginative 'robotic voice.' It's just puerile.

Maybe the producers are wary that people still won't get the danger of unregulated AI without these gimmicks. But I'd argue that people would be more alarmed to learn how AI has been infiltrating and affecting our lives in the least expected ways. If the documentary can clearly point out the potential harms as a consequence, I think people will naturally find the lack of regulation disturbing, no silly visuals and sound effects are needed. Sometimes I think they actually undermine the severity of potential danger at hand. For example, the scene where a teenager is mistakenly stopped by plainclothes police, instead of being accompanied with yet another piece of cheesy soundtrack meant to suggest danger, it would be so much more powerful if everything is just eerily silent.

And the interviews and info - yes, AI is like a black box even to the programmers, but can you explain it in layman's terms so that people get it? - could be a lot more insightful. Even some short Vox-style Youtube clips have explored these issues in greater depth.

The themes explored are a bit all over the place too. I get it this domain is relatively new, so the vocabulary and focus aren't that streamlined yet, still... Sometimes the documentary brings up issues of obvious biases, which is consistent with the title, but sometimes we don't even know what the problem is, it's simply an issue of things being completely nontransparent and/or unverified by a third party. The China parts are also a little disjointed from the rest of the documentary and the country itself is painted in broad strokes - it's as if we can't do good until we can identify the bad guy to feel good about ourselves.

As a tech person, this documentary contains mostly misleading information about how ML works. Please note that, I am talking about tech side, business side is not my expertise. Maybe it would be interesting to watch for non-technical people.

This was a good documentary making points we should all keep in mind.

This is quite an important watch and how data can be used drive private companies to create government applications with intrinsic bias based on race and gender.... what is the human cost.

Garbage in garbage out doesn't just apply to code. It applies to documentaries as well.

Must watch movie for anyone interested in coding , machine learning, AI, racism, etc...

Don't listen to the 1 star reviews, they are obviously BIASED ! LOL ;)

This movie blew my mind !!!

I wish they had put as much effort into their research as they had into their production. Most of all this just felt like a propaganda piece.

There were too many unsubstantiated slippery slope arguments, and demands for oversight, but they never bothered diving into the details. I am sure there are issues with algorithms, AI's, government surveillance etc. But they rarely if ever explained.

Shines the light on bias in our tech. I love how they show unique examples proving their point. I enjoyed this movie alot and hope others will be open minded to the truth.

"Coded Bias" is a highly recommended documentary about how algorithms are biased not because of the computers but because of the data they a fed on ending discriminating against women, people of color, and minorities. Many interesting points about how we are being used as data by AI without knowing and without consent. Also is a refreshing film because, unintentionally, according to the director of the film, most of the people that appeared in it are women, at least two of them African Americans, with higher degrees. A well-done movie about another modern way how we all are being discriminated: algorithms are used today in everything, hiring processes, college applications, layoffs, and the scary part are that those decisions are not being made by humans but by computers. It does not matter what you do, your trajectory, awards, if the algorithm reads you are a woman, a woman, or men of color, the probabilities of being denied a credit card, a college application, a job are higher because of these algorithms that are everywhere. A good documentary, very current, definitely a must-watch.

The matter: Yes, it is relevant. Yes, there should be an oversight.

Documentary: Garbage. Here is why: 1. Title is "Coded Bias": Everyone in this documentary seems to agree even programmers do not know why they are getting results. Then where is the *coded* part?

2. AI and ML are *not* same even though they seem to have been used interchangeably.

3. Where are the programmers they keep on referring to? They could not get a *single* programmer to give even an opinion? We are dime a dozen.

4. Everyone seems to trying to get part of the credit. Good for them. But don't make it that obvious. It's ugly.

5. Documentary came out November 2020. The bans started from June 2020. Seems like sooner they got it out, they knew they will get more bang for the buck.

6. The senator whoever he was put a very distinct blame on programmers. Contrary to the belief, programmers are *not* in absolute control of the project (even in non AI\ML projects).

There are way too many people involved.

7. In every project, programmers seldom have all the samples. That would invalidate the test. Instead there is a separate department.

8. In cases like this, there are two scenarios: a. Someone who is *in charge* of the project, typically a product\project manager, would *provide* the dataset.

B. If the data is sensitive, as it should be in this case, you only get very small subset. Actual fixing would happen based on *defects reported by customer*.

9. If programmers had access to all those sensitive records, then you have bigger problem than facial recognition. Probably one or two people would have access to subset of inputs. But we will not know because you never interviewed any.

10. At any point, *management* has absolute authority to override programmer's decision. After all, it is still a job.

11. Programmers do not care about data, not most of the times anyway. Data is only important as part of test. It's the *users* of that data that are interested in what\how\who\where.

12. Programmers just like any other field same percentage conscientious. They know that unethical use of data is commonplace *and* open issue. But when you were at crossroads, just like likes\dislikes\upvotes\downvotes, you took 2 seconds to decide that it's more important for you to be lazy (remember when you could book a taxi without giving almost no details?)

13. This is USA centric documentary. Nothing wrong with that but apart from UK and China other countries did not exist for film makers I suppose. And then they introduce a controversial opinion speaker "China is outspoken about it". Yes, bravo.

14. It's a feel good documentary. You will get riled up but that's about it. It won't give you any actual information. Documentary seemed more interested in getting more number of people to talk than to go deeper.

Watch it if you want to get all emotional but leave programmers out of it please, unless you include their interviews (we are good at those).