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

121–130 of 461 posts

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

#121

Post by SquibblesRedux »

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…

A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) [1] describes the tradeoff between sensitivity and recall. No matter how sophisticated we think our classifiers are, the confluence of physics and mathematics will always limit the accuracy of our automated systems. It is just a matter of what kinds of errors we are willing to tolerate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteris...

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

#122

Post by visarga »

userbinator wrote: post #76
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.

I remember many years ago when colour schemes/UI themes were still called "skins", and forum discussions about them often yielded amusing racist-if-taken-out-of-context sentences like "do you like white or black skin" and "I have dark skin, but I prefer the white skin." Not a single person was offended or outraged, everyone saw the racial associations but clearly understood the context and was more amused than anythi…

> whether the current "ultra-PC/SJW-ism" trend actually started as a joke that got taken too far and adopted as truth by the gullible

It started with a few German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School in the interwar period.

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

#123

Post by sennight »

jcims wrote: post #60
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…

It's basically perception and reaction without cognition. In the natural world we would call that instinct. So maybe 'artificial instinct' if we want to keep 'AI' or 'synthetic instinct' because I think it sounds better.

It is basically about using the wrong tool for the job, and continuing to do so even after you (and everyone else) is fully aware of just how wrong you are. Personifying the tool would just distract from the root cause.

"I was using a ballpeen hammer to pound in roofing nails, everything was going great until the hammer's 'synthetic instinct' resulted in a painful blow to my groin and a near fatal three story drop. It'll go better next time - I've painted the ballpeen hammer a different color."

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

#124

Post by gorwell »

aftbit wrote: post #87
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have cooler heads prevailed in this regard? “Progressive” Americans degendering Spanish by referring to Latino people as “Latinx” seems to be going as strong as ever, despite the protests of actual native Spanish speakers. In their haste to appear progressive, people who say “Latinx” are ironically engaging in linguistic colonialism, as it were.

It's none of my business but personally I prefer latine[1]. IMO there's no need for white English speakers to tell Spanish speakers their language. We're all on the journey to a world with more than two genders together. Spanish speakers will figure out their own path to inclusivity. 1: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/15/20914347/latin-...

Latino is already inclusive. There's nothing to be done, as Latinos aren't preoccupied with creating fake problems.

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

#125

Post by eloisius »

nirui wrote: post #82
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…

Industrial revolutions has happened few times in the past, and every time it occurs, we change our world to adopt it. I can't help but wonder, what the world would look like if services in the future will be provided primarily by AIs. How do we adopt them? Do we have to invent a "New Speech" just to make AI understand us better so we can live a easier life? "Question: Have you consumed your food today?", "Answer: I h…

A new vernacular to interface with tools that never reveal the actual state of a system under their control, and forbid you to directly influence it. You are granted the privilege to express your limited desires, from which the system will "learn" your preferences.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a man repeating "Hey Thermostat! Can you cool it down in here a little?" over and over–forever.

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

#126

Post by dylan604 »

SilverRed wrote: post #19
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.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Google moderator AI becomes the source of truth on what is offensive. If google doesn't delete it than clearly it is ok. If google does delete it then it is offensive regardless of anything else.

That's the scariest worst idea I've read all day.

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

#127

Post by judge2020 »

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.

Text is text, and you can't encode intent without assuming that the reader has a similar level of internet experience to be able to pull such hidden intent using context clues.

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

#128

Post by dylan604 »

soheil wrote: post #45
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.

Yes, not too dissimilar to Github changing the branch "master". Is there a list of things like this that match this pattern that would be easy for people to go after given a few viral tweets? I feel like if there is such a list, it'd be less shocking when the inevitable happens.

Real estate is moving away from Master bedroom/bath/suite

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

#129

Post by [deleted] »

MontyCarloHall wrote: post #47
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or cooler heads prevail like at the Académie Française who recognize that sexual genders are completely unrelated to grammatical genders despite what activists try to say. So we may just get some people who push back and tell people that chess isn’t racist and it’s people who are injecting race where it doesn’t exist (such as here in chess) who are the problem.

Have cooler heads prevailed in this regard? “Progressive” Americans degendering Spanish by referring to Latino people as “Latinx” seems to be going as strong as ever, despite the protests of actual native Spanish speakers. In their haste to appear progressive, people who say “Latinx” are ironically engaging in linguistic colonialism, as it were.

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by Clubber »

soheil wrote: post #52
kleer001 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

thinks the case of yelling fire in a movie theater jokingly

Yelling fire in a movie theater is perfectly legal and protected speech, even if false. It's only illegal if what is said is "likely to incite imminent lawless action," like a riot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

It's funny, this is often presented as a supporting example to limit citizens' free speech or other rights, typically paired with something along the lines of, "no freedom is limitless." Of course many people don't realize this example is a) outdated and currently false, and b) the argument used against citizens speaking out against WWI using the Espionage Act of 1917, which is considered by many to be one of the worst and oppressive laws to our rights ever written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

You may recognize the names of some of the act's victims:

Among those charged with offenses under the Act are German-American socialist congressman and newspaper editor Victor L. Berger, labor leader and five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, Eugene V. Debs, anarchists Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, former Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society president Joseph Franklin Rutherford, communists Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Cablegate whistleblower Chelsea Manning, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, Defense Intelligence Agency employee Henry Kyle Frese, and National Security Agency (NSA) contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Post reply on HN