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

321–330 of 461 posts

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

#321

Post by bigbillheck »

notyourday wrote: post #199
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…

No. What we need is something that is amazingly simple: * you, a programmer who coded something that caused company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake", have to be on a hook for Y dollars. * you, a manager who managed a project that caused a company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake" by your programmer, have to be on a hook for Y dollars. * you, a product owner who accepted the what the manager of ta p…

You forgot the board and the shareholders.

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

#322

Post by zinekeller »

rawbot wrote: post #313
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".

But the pieces would still be white and black. We just need to recolor them to a color that hasn't been claimed as part of an identity... (looks at rainbow flag) well, shoot... Infrared-coating player and Ultraviolet-coating player? Chrome player vs. Brass player? No kidding, I like this last idea.

> Chrome player vs. Brass player?

Chrome Player: sponsored by Google.

Sorry, I can't stop from posting this joke!

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

#323

Post by twic »

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…

Autobungling?

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

#324

Post by Karsteski »

guerrilla wrote: post #154
jcims wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're going to resurrect the transatlantic accent. I already have started add a hard 'ng' on 'going to' because my phone keeps abbreviating it to 'gonna'.

Yeah that's probably not goinv to work for India and the rest of the anglosphere.

Yea, I'm Trinidadian, and even though my accent has changed significantly from living in Canada for 7 years, people and especially voice recognition get confused by some of my speech patterns.

Example is that people always hear 50 when I say 30, because of how I pounce the "y". Anything ending in "th" or "ing" gets confused a lot by people who don't know me.

It's kinda funny to keep track of :)

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

#325

Post by Asooka »

I guess this just shows how backwards and racist Chess terminology is. It may have been fine back in the day, but I want my children to grow up in a world where Blacks and Whites aren't at war. The sides should be switched to much more neutral names, e.g. based on light - lumen/umbral or something based on trees - teak/mahogany. Obviously we should also replace "attack", "check" and "mate" with non-hate-speech - maybe "push", "jeopardy" and just remove "mate", as you can say the same thing by "I believe you have run out of valid moves to make and thus I win".

Not like this is without precedent - I remember back when pieces were said to kill each other and then it was replaced by "capturing". Come to think of it "capturing" as an objective is also rather problematic, maybe we should call it "liberating", since you're really returning these peasants who were forced to serve their king back to their homes.

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

#326

Post by schwartzworld »

dorkwood wrote: post #266

It's never been confirmed that the language of chess is the reason the channel was flagged. It's all speculation. A fishing channel being taken offline due to hate speech, for example, is a boring story. The same thing happening to a chess channel is much juicier due to the implication that an AI accidentally flagged the words "black" and "white" as racist. There are a lot of reasons to be outraged by that idea, but…

And then it blows up here because HN has a lot of people who are disproportionately upset about default branches being called "main" instead of "master".

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

#327

Post by magnostherobot »

textgel wrote: post #284
cryptoz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. Yes, there is. This is a very well-researched topic. https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-co... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107... etc.

Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. Yes I think that one can be dismissed.

I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

> A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis

My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too.

> a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue.

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts.

Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers?

I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.

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

#328

Post by BigJono »

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.

I've never got why people don't understand this. Judging people by their intent resolves a lot of ambiguity, for both political sides.

If someone gets up infront of a room of 1000 people and says "hey guys!", clearly intending to reference the entire audience, they're not being fucking sexist.

And if you're standing there with 5 racists showing a pepe flag or an ok sign or whatever random garbage it is this week, then you're a fucking racist.

There's absolutely no need for nuance or ambiguity in either case.

You can argue the toss all you want about how to determine whether someone is intending to do something (it's not like you can read minds so that can obviously have a ton of complexity to it), but if you're starting from a position that people can unintentionally do something offensive then everything that follows is just pointless bullshit. You've just built a trump card for both sides into the argument so they can just scream past each other like morons without contributing anything meaningful.

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

#329

Post by textgel »

magnostherobot wrote: post #327
textgel wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. Yes I think that one can be dismissed.

I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers? > A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too. > a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively util…

> I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers?

Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed.

> I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to

That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment.

> Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.

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

#330

Post by f1refly »

cryptoz wrote: post #158
nate_meurer wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny That's an opinion, and it's not a supportable opinion, because we don't really know much about the jokes. Parent's comment wasn't intended to convey the material faithfully-- just a bare description. We don't know the exact wording, the delivery, the timing, or any other context. Maybe they were lame (another opionion), but it's also possible that I (or even you) would have got…

> Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. Yes, there is. This is a very well-researched topic. https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-co... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107... etc.

> The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti-homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti-gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes.

So, let me rephrase that

> after hearing jokes featuring homosexuals, the anti-homosexuals (however those where determined and chosen for the study) where anti-homosexual. The not-anti-homosexuals where not anti-homosexual ater hearing jokes featuring homosexuals

If anything, that link disproves your own point.

Post reply on HN