Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 461 posts

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#61

Post by CliffyA »

fieryscribe wrote: post #17
daenz wrote: post #6

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone makes the argument that this automated flagging is an indicator that chess's language is inadvertently racially charged. And think about the concept of "white goes first." All it takes is a few viral tweets, and suddenly the game of chess is in the crosshairs.

This happened last year. The Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC) hosted a discussion about this[1] [1] https://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/john-adams-slams-a...

Or what actually happened was the radio show asked if white going first was racially based, concluding that it was not. But conservative media spent days getting themselves outraged over it before it even aired.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/chess/12427690

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#62

Post by spxtr »

fighterpilot wrote: post #22
SilverRed wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First and second implies a hierarchy and uneven power balance. Both players should have their turns simultaneously.

I thought of this and realized it'd actually be a fun game. Both players write down their next move and then move simultaneously once both are ready. To avoid race conditions, if a player moves a piece that is to be taken by the opponent's move, then that player has saved that piece with that move. That creates an interesting dynamic where you may not wish to take the most valuable piece if you predict the other play…

I used to play a real-time version of this called Kung-Fu Chess. Each piece takes time to move to its destination, and when it arrives, a timer ticks down before that specific piece can be moved again. Very fun game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung-Fu_Chess https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVob7meb83w

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#64

Post by tsjq »

ma2rten wrote: post #57
shp0ngle wrote: post #5

Well. The speech police started changing "blacklist" and "whitelist" in programming context, even when those had no racist history; maybe it's time to change it in chess. (After all, white always goes first, that is not very PC.) Rename "black" and "white" to "second player" and "first player".

Could we do some affirmative action and let black go first?

and that is not sufficient. we need to give 33% more moves to black to compensate for the all troubles mounted on them in the past.

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#68

Post by kube-system »

kleer001 wrote: post #25
hyperhopper wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, that might be a sign that the idea of drawing abstract connections between words and concepts, that are several layers of indirection apart, may be going too far. Yeah using language that upsets people is bad, but if you allow enough layers between words and concepts, _everything_ can be argued to be offensive for one reason or another. Or will be soon once something else becomes a hot button issue.

> using language that upsets people is bad Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that's a goddamn fucking waste of time.

> Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only.

People can be unintentionally upset. I'm sure we can all think of a time when we've accidentally upset someone. I still try not to do it.

We don't have to force people to change their language. It will happen over generations as we discuss these topics.

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#69

Post by sergiotapia »

hirundo wrote: post #21

We need a word or phrase for this phenomenon, where we attempt to substitute human pattern recognition with algorithms that just aren't up to the job. Facebook moderation, Tesla Full Self Driving, the War Games movie, arrests for mistaken facial identification. It's becoming an increasingly dystopic force in our lives and will likely get much worse before getting even worse. So it needs a label. Maybe there's a ten s…

Fauxtomation

Re: A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

#70

Post by axiom92 »

basilgohar wrote: post #40
Clewza313 wrote: post #2

> “White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall … ” Fortunately there's an easy solution: we can just replace "white" and "black" with neutral alternatives like "allow" and "deny" or "pass" and "block".

Was this reply made by an AI? The context of the suggestions seem GPT-3 close...

This is what GPT-3 (davinci, the 175B parameter model) generates for real:

* Prompt: ">White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall..." Fortunately there's an easy solution:

* GPT-3 Response:

Just don't play chess!

This is the only solution. The reason for this is that the "chess is bad for you" argument is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent". It goes like this: If A, then B B Therefore A In other words, if chess is bad for you, and you play chess, then you'll be bad for you. The fallacy can be seen by simply replacing "A" and "B" with two different statements, for example: The sky is blue Some birds fly Therefore, some birds are blue. See the difference? The argument against chess can be logically rephrased as "Chess is bad for you, and those who play chess will be bad for you. Therefore chess is bad for you."

Post reply on HN