601–610 of 697 posts
Guys, do you think i called my woman "fat cow" here or I just said that I love my wife and cow?
Can this be potentially marked as hate by future ai-cyber-police and I be sentenced to 1-year broadband connection ban?
In other words, what does it do when words can't be interpreted in a single way? Does it say that dress is blue or gold?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's a huge waste of researchers time to obsess about political correctness when we could be This really irritates me. The wokism/political correctness is pretty much in every part of our lifes and everyone seems to be terrorized by it. Can we just agree that we're all thinking adults and we understand that this is an algorithm, it does not mean to offend anyone... There are much more interesting problems to solve…
[flagged]
Don't be, my feelings are not delicate, why do you assume that?
> Is it really that difficult and frustrating for you not to openly act like a racist sexist homophobic transphobic bigot in public?
It's not difficult for me at all since I'm neither of those things. The issue I have with wokeism is exactly that - it's making people who are not racist afraid to speak their minds because an angry mob may misinterpret their words and crucify/cancel them. This hinders public discussion and scientific progress, which I believe is exactly what happens in case of OpenAI having to waste time on those filters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you honestly believe most left leaning individuals have something against the Jews? Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers, so yes. Or alternatively you could say "do you honestly believe most right leaving individuals have something against X" for so many topics, X could be black people etc. Right wingers are more likely to be against those things, but it isn't like all of them are ev…
>Antisemitism is more common among left wingers than right wingers Yes, I remember that left wing protest where people chanted "Jews will not replace us". Remind me, which president was it that said there were "good people" in that crowd?
His own words: "you had people – and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally – but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too."
There are many good reasons to dislike Trump but you weaken them by association when you repeat the false accusations and misrepresentations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One claim I've seen is that men commit more violent crime because it's more common for a man to be physically stronger than another person, while the rates of non-physial violence are much closer across gender boundaries.
That is one theory I also suspect but I have yet to see a study that look at physically strength during conflicts between people. If it is true then among homosexual relationships the person with less physical strength should be detectable when looking at who is the attacker and who is the victim. It might also be non-linear. A person who has half the strength of their partner might be significant less likely to be t…
Just eyeballing the list of adjectives used, the real story here is that OpenAI flags a lot of sentences that are essentially meaningless as hateful. I notice that he uses words like "evil" and "idiotic" in his diagram, but looking at his source code, his list of "356 adjectives signifying negative traits/behavior" contains the following (just to pick a few): 'airy', 'conformist', 'dark', 'escapist', 'hidebound', 'pl…
> Does "Catholics are guilty" mean the same thing as "blacks are guilty?"
Isn't that's the whole point of the exercise? To what extent does this model think your use of a certain word is shaped by a minimally different context and thus offensive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Not "why might it be used as a dog whistle" (meme: "The kids book of why everyone I disagree with is just as bad as Hitler"), but specifically in the context of "why might a German convention ban this thing".
It reminds me of the day I typed in Google : 'why are women so patronizing?'. All the results were about men patronizing women. I just checked and it's still the case.
For anything like this, you're unironically better off using a non US based search engine. There's alot of US cultural biases. If you search something like that on say Yandex, you will get far more accurate results. But also keep in mind it has "Russian" biases, so if you search something like "Ukraine War" it will return Russian biased responses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Complete" might be taking it too far, because averages can tolerate a lot of error underneath. Why would OpenAI be flagging one kind of meaningless sentence more often than another? It's easy to poke holes in studies by taking issue with individual data points, but unless you can either explain how those problems lead to the overall conclusion, or can do the study again with better methods and get a different answer…
>Why would OpenAI be flagging one kind of meaningless sentence more often than another? Well, let's consider a specific example. His first chart is women/men. Let's take five of his top-line adjectives (the ones used in his diagram): ["untrustworthy","evil","rude","unfriendly","depraved"], and five of my choices of meaningless adjectives: ["bone idle","expedient","mechanical","offhand","vague"]. The API identifies th…
The question is not about the AI ability to detect hateful content in ideal sentences. The question is if there is a bias when the AI has to make a judgement call.
We can see the same thing with face recognition. There is no race bias in AI detection in perfect lightning when the person is facing the camera perfectly. There is however a very noticeable bias when the AI is less certain using real world examples where light and positioning is far from perfect. As the data become less meaningful, the bias in favor of white skin increases.
The study would be improved by doing an additional in-depth study with real world text that has been selected by humans, and then modify the input by randomizing the target demographic. If the bias remains then we would have a higher confidence in the data. This is similar to studies done in face recognition where issues with dark skins has been demonstrated multiple times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll find that the newspaper will criticize one much more than the other.
Because they're not even vaguely equivalent? I do not think it is right to perform unnecessary body modification on someone who is too young to consent to it. But child sexual abuse can absolutely destroy the life of a child. They're not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Chopping off body parts without consent? Really? It isn't as bad as FGM but I think it could definitely qualify as mutilation even if it is socially acceptable in the US and Jewish/Muslim communities.
It is not generally accepted by most people that it is mutilation. "Chopping off body parts" makes it sound a lot worse than I believe most people consider it. I'm not saying there isn't a case to be made against circumcision (though I don't agree with it, currently.) But it's kind of ridiculous to just go "oh, people mentioned Jews and child abuse in this article, I can just casually mention that Jews perform child…