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

The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

davidrozado.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 697 posts

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#651

Post by this2shallPass »

LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #596
this2shallPass wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This view isn't supported by studies in this area. They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right. > While antisemitism in the U.S. is often written about through a “both sides” lens, our evidence — the first of its kind in testing hypotheses through experiments on a large repre- sentative sample — suggests the problem of antisemitism is much more serious on…

> They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right. You know who says that? The same US intelligence agencies that conspired to censor twitter and who said the hunter biden laptop wasn't real. Who actually supports Israel? Consistently the US right and the Republicans. The Canadian government leaned heavily into this fabrication early in 2022 for the trucker p…

>> They do find antisemitism on the left and the center of the US political spectrum - just more on the right. > >You know who says that?

Academics looking at data: https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/hersh_roy...

> it was ignored until the prime minister was finally forced to acknowledge it.

Appropriate responses should happen the moment these things come to light.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#652

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

overrun11 wrote: post #645
minsc_and_boo wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a ban when they are tweeting about it? It looks more like an algorithmic hiccup that was corrected than a ban for violating TOS. Not the same at all.

He appealed and it was affirmed by an actual moderator that it was against the TOS. He was allowed back on the platform after deleting the tweet as the linked thread explains. So yes, he was banned for violating the TOS.

What does any of this have to do with conservative views being censored?

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#653

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #628
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name others? I literally could not find the controversies for the first two, and it doesn’t appear anything worse than being fired from Google has happened to James Damore.

Both of the first two are on Wikipedia. Prom dress controversy: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kassycho/keziah-daum-pr... Geisha party: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-called-apos-racist-apos-... Professor suspended for using a Chinese word: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus... Asian fusion restaurant incident: https://www.dailywire.com/news/asian-restaurant-in-nyc-force... These…

Sure, the people are on Wikipedia, but the account of their controversy was not.

Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppressed?

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#654

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

stale2002 wrote: post #518
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, political affiliation is not a protected class in California. A bill that would have made it one failed to pass the state legislature in 2021. [0] Regardless, it shouldn’t be. [0] https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/is-political-affiliation-a...

From the link you posted: "California employment law forbids political retaliation in the workplace. This includes terminating or retaliating against workers for their political beliefs or activity." So yes, political affiliation absolutely has strong protections in CA, even if it does not fit a highly technical, but irrelevant, definition which is "protected class". And the central point is that yes political affili…

No, political affiliation does not have strong protections in CA, and OP is not arguably correct, as "protected status" is absolutely a term of art in law, and does not apply here.

Besides, even if that were true, it's morally wrong and should not be true, as you can (and should) change your political affiliation at will, including in response to negative feedback from your community.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#655

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

teblen wrote: post #641
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, hate from a group in control is much different than hate from a group that isn't in control.

"Terfs" aren't the ones in control, not by a long shot. Radical feminists have been consistently mocked and marginalised since their activism started. By contrast, trans-identifying people are comparatively celebrated in our society.

Okay? What I said still stands.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#656

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #629
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re missing the argument here for the red-team/blue-team stuff. Regardless of team, if someone says or does something reprehensible, it ought to be condemned. That’s what these people did, and seems like they’ve moved on from there. Their lives go on, but you obsess over one chapter of their lives. Just seems overblown for its own sake.

I’m not on either team; I get flack from both. These people were patently not doing anything reprehensible, which is the whole point. Specifically, they were transparently fired/harassed/etc for deviating from the party line.

> These people were patently not doing anything reprehensible

Says you. I say differently.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#657

Post by SpeedilyDamage »

mellosouls wrote: post #544
SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument conservatives provide is the idea that they're overly censored on platforms; how permissively they're spoken of (hatefully or otherwise) is unrelated. If anything, it's in alignment to their ideology, not against it. But let's say what you're claiming is true for a moment. Political ideology shouldn't have been included with race, gender, and religion anyway; it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate aga…

I'd dispute religion not being a choice and that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate as you suggest, but, regardless, this seems like semantic cartwheels to avoid the clear, evidenced point that bias is present. Whether you or I approve of or align with that bias is irrelevant.

No it’s not irrelevant; bias is good when it hinders horrible things and supports great things.

This is an argument on the merits of specific biases, not an argument that all biases are bad; no person or group operates with the intention of removing all bias, even if they claim to want that.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#658

Post by throwaway894345 »

minsc_and_boo wrote: post #648
throwaway894345 wrote: post #644

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, those are two completely different statements, as I'm sure you know: > you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable. > I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leader…

Hiding behind an appeal to averages does not change the fact that Damore said women [on average ] are biologically incapable of being in tech and leadership positions. Again, Damore reaped the consequences of his own actions by violating a contract he agreed to. This is intentionally misleading to represent him as a martyr for right-wingers. Unless, of course, you think the conservative agenda includes promoting that…

If course, he didn’t say “on average women are incapable of leadership”. Care to try again with words he actually used?

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#659

Post by throwaway894345 »

SpeedilyDamage wrote: post #653
throwaway894345 wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the first two are on Wikipedia. Prom dress controversy: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kassycho/keziah-daum-pr... Geisha party: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-called-apos-racist-apos-... Professor suspended for using a Chinese word: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus... Asian fusion restaurant incident: https://www.dailywire.com/news/asian-restaurant-in-nyc-force... These…

Sure, the people are on Wikipedia, but the account of their controversy was not. Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppressed?

They are both on wikipedia; I read them yesterday. On mobile now, but you can google them easily. They don’t have anything to do with conservatives views being suppressed because we weren’t talking about that. The original claim was that people who get “called out” have reprehensible views—I gave examples of people who were fired or harassed or etc for completely innocuous speech.

Re: The unequal treatment of demographic groups by ChatGPT/OpenAI content moderation

#660

Post by habitue »

Miner49er wrote: post #547
habitue wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a little slight of hand you're doing here. Not getting into whether murder is ok, I definitely think there's a difference between a slaveowner and a white person. A white person can't stop being white, and they didn't choose to be white. A slaveowner is committing a violation of another human's rights. It's a thing they could have chosen not to do, and it's a thing they can choose to stop doing any time. I do…

The concept of race is a tool of oppression. As a society, we can decide to do away with the idea of race. We choose to allow the system to continue to exist, the same way a slaveowner chooses to continue to be a slaveowner. Economically, white people and men are clearly advantaged, and money is probably the purest form of power there is.

Money isn't the purest form of power, physical force is the purest form of power. Second to that is probably the threat of physical force, then probably the threat of inprisonment, etc. Money is powerful, no doubt though.

I agree we could decide to drop the idea of race. It would be really nice. Humans are always forming out-group hatreds, but it would be very nice if we could not consider another race the out-group. I don't think it's just as simple as just deciding to do away with the idea of race, any more than we could just decide to do away with the idea of money or like, the legitimacy of the court system. Sure, it's a social fiction, but it's self-reinforcing, which means it's hard to coordinate to get rid of.

Post reply on HN