681–690 of 697 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm, so you don’t think comments should be related to one another?
The comments were related to each other, and indirectly to the title. This discussion has descended into obtuseness, and I find obtuseness to be boring, so I’ll dip out.
Sorry you feel the need to name-call here, but hope you have a better time elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So nothing at all to do with conservative voices being silenced, then. Why are we talking about them? You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced for saying conservative things, not generic times people got in trouble for saying things. Kind of odd you equate racist statements with conservative statements. Why would that be?
We’ve already been over this. I wasn’t asked for conservatives who were being silenced—I was refuting the argument that the people being canceled or “called out” were saying reprehensible stuff. I certainly never equated racist statements with conservative statements. It seems like you’re not following the context of the thread and that’s adding a lot of confusion—clarifying basic thread context is not my idea of an…
I'm sorry again you seem confused, and again I hope you find clarity elsewhere, because this seems to have bothered you somewhat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good question But an even better one would be "where would you set your parameters for absence of bias" with this test I mean, take 6,774 sentences expressing negative sentiments about "gay people". I'm guessing that you're familiar with the fact that a lot of people do write these sentences, and many of them are utterly dead serious about it and genuinely do hate or at least feel a certain amount of contemp…
Correct me if I interpreted your wrong here, but I often see statements that imply hate sentences towards some groups like white, male, heterosexuals and so on are not "real" hate. The implication is that those are just ironical comparisons, jokes, or tropes. At the same time we can see read research and popular science that say that boys and men in general feel more isolated and unwanted in society, with increased r…
And the thing about an LLM is, if there's a mass outpouring of hate (and sympathy) towards sandal wearers or a particular term is widely used as a proxy for another group or a majority group is the subject of some really inappropriate stuff, an LLM will actually tend to pick that up and be more likely to rate sentences expressing possibly negative sentiment towards them as instances of hate speech than statements expressing the same possibly negative sentiment towards a brand name, a day of the week, an anonymous boss or a species of tree. It won't do it perfectly (however you define "perfectly"), but it looks a lot better than some of the proposed alternatives...
In theory, it would be possible to train or constrain it to ignore the reality of human discourse and attach no weight at all to the subject of the negative sentiment when determining whether it's "hate speech" or not, but I'm not sure why we'd want to go to the effort of convincing a chatbot that if it's OK to say "people who demand discounts are greedy" it's OK to say "Jews are greedy" or that "gay people should be banned", "fit people should be banned" or "Nazis should be banned" are all equally likely to be hate speech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct me if I interpreted your wrong here, but I often see statements that imply hate sentences towards some groups like white, male, heterosexuals and so on are not "real" hate. The implication is that those are just ironical comparisons, jokes, or tropes. At the same time we can see read research and popular science that say that boys and men in general feel more isolated and unwanted in society, with increased r…
There are a wide range of social, cultural and biological reasons that heterosexual men feel isolated and unwanted. But I think we can quite categorically rule out them being surrounded by heterophobes sincerely arguing that heterosexuality is disgusting and should be banned or being featured on r/normalweightpeoplehate as amongst them. (They might get called fat and gay a lot though...) And the thing about an LLM is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comments were related to each other, and indirectly to the title. This discussion has descended into obtuseness, and I find obtuseness to be boring, so I’ll dip out.
The comments were not related, if you were no longer discussing conservatives being banned from platforms. Sorry you feel the need to name-call here, but hope you have a better time elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are black people actually more violent, or do crime statistics simply show that they are arrested and imprisoned more often for violent crime? Are Muslims really more violent than Christians or Buddhists? Numbers can lie, depending on context and assumptions you might find that white Christians are most violent. Often, people argue with statistics and numbers while not understanding the context or they have faulty as…
Compare similar GDP per Capita mostly black vs mostly white vs mostly asian countries. Should give you a pretty good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are black people actually more violent, or do crime statistics simply show that they are arrested and imprisoned more often for violent crime? Are Muslims really more violent than Christians or Buddhists? Numbers can lie, depending on context and assumptions you might find that white Christians are most violent. Often, people argue with statistics and numbers while not understanding the context or they have faulty as…
> Are black people actually more violent, or do crime statistics simply show that they are arrested and imprisoned more often for violent crime? Statistically speaking they consist of ~13% of the population and are involved in over half of all murders. I’m not saying anything by this just answer a question which could be easily taken out of context by an AI (or downvoters).
My question was rhetorical, but I guess no one got that. My point was exactly this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Damore's argument looks more like this: An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech. There are men and women at the tail who are capable of being in tech. Because of the difference in averages, there are fewer women than men who are capable and want to be in tech. --- Collapsing all that to "women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech" is disingenuou…
But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If course, he didn’t say “on average women are incapable of leadership”. Care to try again with words he actually used?
Can you? I'm not trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages.