[kosh2]

That is not my point. Even if we had a model that could portray reality as objective as possible, a lot of people wouldn't like that and be actually offended by it.

This has also been going on a lot in the "representation" discourse.

A bohemian village 500 years ago would have been 100% white in almost all circumstances. Surgents would be male. Telephone scammers Indian and so on.

But in many ways, simply showing reality is not only not wanted but even offensive. What has to be shown is an idealized version of reality that we want to achieve and that is "more diversity". And what is maximum diversity? Zero white people.

> If you trained a model purely on past history, it would see a 1:1 correlation between "US President" and "man" and decide that women cannot be President.

Why would you think that? You and me also know the history but also realize that a woman can be president.

[jakeinspace]

I think a model that is historically 100% accurate demographically, while also reflecting current or maybe even slight optimism about demographic balance when giving results not bound to a particular historical period, would be acceptable to the vast majority of people, especially if that can be rigorously shown through statistical sampling.