Liz, congratulations on a stunning display of how the system works to distort the truth. You started with the correct observation and problem statement, then went on to aim your blame gun in entirely the wrong direction.
Where is the research evidence underlying your conclusions? It is logical that visual sensing technologies in general might be less effective at sensing beautiful skins of colour, since these contrast less against the normal every day case of coloured backgrounds, but gender bias in facial recognition?
As someone with a little technical experience in the field of facial recognition, I would dispute there can ever be gender bias in it unless specifically programmed to be such. That would be against the urge to maximise the capability of the sensor to generate maximum profits, so would be completely illogical.
The only human programmed bias that exists in the system is for it to make profit for a minority, at the expense of the majority.
That zero-sum operation is the single problem in the system, the real reason why all people feed on all others, magnifying all divisions, pointing the finger of blame in all directions except at the real culprit, our own drive to profit at the expense of others.
Quoting Goldman Sachs’ view on this is like quoting the excuses given by a fox, on why the chickens in his coop keep disappearing.
You yourself are a CEO. I presume that means chief of a profit seeking company. So maybe you need to look to your own driver if you really want to see the real source of the issue.
I think we all do; all of us humans who’ve come to believe unquestionably in the zero-sum game.
Despite the assertions made by adherents and proponents of the zero-sum game, nature itself doesn’t really work that way.