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

Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 1001 posts

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#471

Post by slg »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #416
slg wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what your age is in comparison to your chosen ideal of 2005. As I am getting older it is easier to see the patterns in all this. Most people just want the entire world frozen from the time they were young. That includes everything from the cast of SNL to acceptable language. I have seen enough decades of people complaining about policing language to know that we survived multiple waves of this before 2005 an…

I dunno, man. You're right that the term "mainboard" isn't going to kill us, and I wouldn't advise anyone to make this their main crusade in life. But that's a pretty high standard of dismissiveness and I've never seen anyone apply it to language changes that genuinely bug them. If we discovered that Google employees call codebases which have a lot of bugs "gay", and people got angry about it, would you tell them tha…

>But that's a pretty high standard of dismissiveness and I've never seen anyone apply it to language changes that genuinely bug them.

I am applying that dismissiveness to all objections equally based off their motivation. I don't agree with the argument on either side of the "motherboard/mainboard" debate. But I can emphasize with the motivation of the side pushing for "mainboard" because it is the same as your argument about misusing "gay" being unnaceptable. I disagree with their specific objection but I understand the motivation. I don't understand the side pushing for "motherboard" because the heart of the objection seems to be "things were better when I was young". Presented with those two options, why not side with the people who you would side with if we were arguing over a different word such as "gay"?

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#472

Post by mrosett »

krastanov wrote: post #23
mgraczyk wrote: post #9

In the article they use the example of "Motherboard" and "Landlord" and seem to suggest that these are areas where the Google AI is making mistakes or being overly strict. As a Google employee expressing my own opinion and observations of company culture, I can say that these are 100% not mistakes. Many Google employees are just so out of touch with the real world that they believe it is the duty of Google Docs to ch…

I am incredulous at the "mother" to "birthing person" requirement. I have seen one or two people with such prescriptive views on language but the vast majority of people I know consider it ridiculous. And I am in an incredibly "woke" social bubble.

This gender-neutral terminology seems to be standard in official materials in the ob/gyn academic world

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#473

Post by newsclues »

duxup wrote: post #154
dekhn wrote: post #13

One of the reasons I left google is that their "content moderation team" (the folks who make you take down wrongthink memes) is so far out of touch, that somebody had to explain to them there are people in the world who are discriminated against, but aren't black. They simply didn't know that was the case! And if that's the people who are moderating content... I said motherboard all the time in meetings and chats, ne…

One of the challenges with moderation teams like that or similar is that the folks who REALLY want to do that job .. are the folks who absolutely should NOT be doing it.

How do we make jobs activist proof?

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#474

Post by nicbou »

mattzito wrote: post #466
nicbou wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I use the new terms and move on. It's really not that bad. However it tends to become a password game. There's a new password every few months. If you know the new password, you get to feel above those who don't. It's as we invent new crimes to charge people with. If no one calls it out (because sure, whatever), it keeps ratcheting up. Then banal conversations turn into minefields. What you say gets inv…

Yeah, I’m the same way - also a googler, I used the term “grandfathered” in a meeting with a bunch of people and someone on Meet chat corrected me to “legacy” or something, and I said, “oh, okay, no problem” and corrected myself and moved on. So - I used a word that someone didn’t like, they corrected me, I adjusted without deep apology and moved on, and everything was fine. Who cares? Why is this such a huge issue,…

What's the new password?

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#475

Post by lxgr »

bloak wrote: post #392
astura wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Blacklist" and "whitelist" suck anyway because they require the cultural knowledge that "black is bad and white is good" to understand their meaning. "Allowlist" and "denylist" don't require any cultural background to understand - their names are purely descriptive. They are just better terms.

What about "redlist" and "greenlist"? The association between "red" and "stop", and between "green" and "go", seem more arbitrary than the associations with "black" and "white" but almost everyone in the world is familiar with traffic lights. (And the inhabitants of the North Sentinel Island probably don't need to configure mail servers or whatever.)

Red and green traffic lights (and indeed even the distinction between green and blue) are not universally understood either:

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2013/02/25/language/the-ja...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction...

What's your objection to "allowlist" (or "golist") and "denylist"/"blocklist"/"stoplist"?

It's not often that we have an almost universally better alternative, but at least to me it seems like this is the case here. (Yes, allow/deny have one syllable more each, but I think we'll live.)

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#476

Post by tempnow987 »

elpakal wrote: post #320
tempnow987 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely do not do this. There is massive brigading that happens and the folks pushing the "anti-isms" are very very focused on this stuff. You will get on a list as some type of abuser / racist. Everyone knows to keep heads down on this stuff at a place like google or just find somewhere else to work. It really doesn't matter if you are liberal in all other ways even.

Yep, I understand this could backfire and thank you for pointing it out. It's probably best to let it simmer on HN. It's just my anecdotal experience with this kind of mentality that the people looking to enlighten us simple minded folk are also using any questioning or opposition of their enlightenment as an opportunity to shame those people that question or oppose. Some kind of twisted competition I guess. (not to…

The real problem can be that you are not actually told what is what first.

You go to shake someone's hand using your right hand. That reinforces the patriarchy, so you are told off.

You ask, no one told me I should shake hands with my left hand.

It's not the job of the oppressed to educate the oppressor.

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#478

Post by xen2xen1 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #298
nostromo wrote: post #31

Who was asking for Woke Clippy? Is Google just bored and completely out of ideas? They seem increasingly disconnected with what their users actually want.

As a corporate culture, Google very much believes that if you ask the pre-car public what they want, they'd say "faster horses." ... and the willingness to take risks has historically served them pretty well.

But then Google gives you a car for free, then tells you it won't work in six months as they're canceling the service. Then they do it again, and again, and then no one wants a Google Car because it would just get canceled. The idea may have served them, the execution has not. This idea also translates into, "I know better than you what you want", which leads to not listening, not hearing, and ignoring your customer's needs, which is 199% Google.

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#479

Post by mattzito »

nicbou wrote: post #474
mattzito wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I’m the same way - also a googler, I used the term “grandfathered” in a meeting with a bunch of people and someone on Meet chat corrected me to “legacy” or something, and I said, “oh, okay, no problem” and corrected myself and moved on. So - I used a word that someone didn’t like, they corrected me, I adjusted without deep apology and moved on, and everything was fine. Who cares? Why is this such a huge issue,…

What's the new password?

Starting when I was a kid, I used the expression “gypped” without concern or awareness, and then at some point someone maybe in high school or college took me aside and explained that it was based on a stereotype. I was nonplussed for a minute, and then I moved on. And I just don’t say that anymore. I don’t feel bad about having said it in the past, I don’t have any deep guilt, I just…got on with my life.

So I guess the password is “don’t use a colloquialism based on an ethnic stereotype “, and that seems pretty straightforward and reasonable.

Re: Google’s AI-powered ‘inclusive warnings’ feature is very broken

#480

Post by psyc »

mattzito wrote: post #466
nicbou wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right. I use the new terms and move on. It's really not that bad. However it tends to become a password game. There's a new password every few months. If you know the new password, you get to feel above those who don't. It's as we invent new crimes to charge people with. If no one calls it out (because sure, whatever), it keeps ratcheting up. Then banal conversations turn into minefields. What you say gets inv…

Yeah, I’m the same way - also a googler, I used the term “grandfathered” in a meeting with a bunch of people and someone on Meet chat corrected me to “legacy” or something, and I said, “oh, okay, no problem” and corrected myself and moved on. So - I used a word that someone didn’t like, they corrected me, I adjusted without deep apology and moved on, and everything was fine. Who cares? Why is this such a huge issue,…

It sounds like you’ve already totally internalized the notion that what you said was incorrect because anyone at all had some problem with it.

My response would be more like: And just who are you?

So in a way, you’re right.

Post reply on HN