Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

611–620 of 1001 posts

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

#611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, who asked for this? One would think they'd be trying to achieve feature parity with Microsoft Office instead.

MS Word introduced a language censor like this recently (I've not seen it, only seen it announced at a workplace), so maybe they are following where MS leads?

It’s far less intrusive. It will highlight fuck, for example, and tell you “that language might be offensive to readers.” It also flags on idioms that may come across poorly if you aren’t familiar with them/know English well. In a strongly multicultural company it’s been quite nice to have it catch a couple of my phrasings that wouldn’t track well to a non English speaker.

I interpret Microsoft’s as helpful when considering ESL or other cultures. I interpret Google’s as straight woke. Very different products but you’re probably right that Microsoft led them there.

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

#612
post #46
post #29

I spent many years in the bluest corner of a very blue state. But still I can't imagine any objection to the word "landlord" outside of (1) a right wing attempt to satirize the left, (2) a Google product brainstorming meeting, or (3) a rare sincere outlier or concern troll. In any of those cases I don't think this is necessary. That said, if the word "landlord" organically fell out of favor and out of usage to be rep…

Landlord gets hit from multiple sides; those who don't like that it contains "lord" which is a male term, those who don't like that landlords exist, and those who don't like that the concept of owning land exists.

Sure the origin is to do with Lords but landlord isn't male, anyone can be a landlord, pretending it's gendered is just lying to try and be offended. Presumably, such people think the word coward references bovines as it includes the word cow.

I don't like that landlords exist, but that's an inordinately stupid reason to try and get rid of a word. Surely noone believes that by sensoring a word you get rid of that which the word describes.

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

#613
post #206

Somewhere I wonder if people have read too much of Orwell's 1984 and Iain M. Banks Culture series and have decided that between Newspeak and Marain is an idea that whilst we may not better the world today, if we can obliterate language we can obliterate an idea. Sapir-Whorf hypothesis put to use as a tool to ensure that future generations of humans will avoid the problems that have plagued us for all time, because th…

[deleted]

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

#615
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't unique to SV. There are plenty of examples of words and behaviours that were commonplace and then over time evolved to be unacceptable to use in polite company. I'd like to give some examples, but I fear I'd end up swiftly banned for even using some of the best examples. One interesting case is "idiots, imbeciles and morons" - once technical terms to describe a mental health scale. The 'most insulting' end…

Yeah, it's a continuous process, called ‘euphemism treadmill’ (not a technical term though): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Lifespan However, personally I'm pretty sure that the US is overdoing it.

There must be some way to measure that... Eg. Percentage of language 'cancelled' per year.

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

#616
post #548

I wonder if this is an example of not knowing your audience (or rather assuming one's self represents a wider audience than it does). The people vouching for this at Google are likely product marketing managers, public relations folks, social media managers, etc. All they do is write corporate garbage all day, and much like we have "nit"s in PR's for formatting, variable names, etc; they likely have similar reviews t…

I support it and I don’t work for google. I like this feature that encourages more empathy in this strife and hate filled world.

So Google execs now decides how we speak… brave new world. You like it until it corrects you for not being woke enough

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

#617

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.

Google is an ad company whose core competency is getting lots people to click on links and buy things in exchange for money. They aren't exactly revolutionizing the world for good. Most of their innovative ideas get a splashy launch, middling support for a while, and then fizzle and/or get killed.

The idea that there are millions of people who want to be told that motherboard is a dirty word every time they write it, but won't realize that desire until Google foists it on them, just strikes me as absurd.

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

#618
post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The easiest way to not be Damore'd is to apologize and repent. Damore doubled down and at that point (because the gap between "manager" and "employee" at Google is so narrow) became a walking Title VII violation. Once his coworkers came out in public saying they wouldn't be able to work with him, Google was backed (legally and PR-wise) completely into a corner. It turns out American companies are not the Athenian Lyc…

> The easiest way to not be Damore'd is to apologize and repent. What? Absolutely not. That is terrible advice when it comes to something that couldn't have been a literal accident. If he'd used the word "mother", then sure-- that could be apologized for. But a protracted essay on population level statistical differences between genders and its impact on the employment pool? Not a chance. There is so much noise and o…

> There is so much noise and outright disinformation about any issue that often the only reliable source for wrong doing is when the target of an accusation admits it themselves.

Sometimes, but doesn't apply here; the entire kerfluffle happened on an internal-public message-board. There was a paper-trail a mile long.

> Do you think a damore that apologized and said he was mistaken would be more employable?

Absolutely. Google management was very willing to give him a second chance. His mistake was basically tactless following of the existing corporate culture of internal openness, and they recognized that. Unfortunately, he did basically everything in his power to make retaining him as unpalatable as possible, claiming repeatedly the science was on his side and people shouldn't be afraid to debate science. Like I said: walking Title VII violation. You can debate the science all you want, but not as an employee in an American corporation that also has project authority.

In essence, he dared Google to either go up against the Civil Rights Act or admit they were hypocritical about their internal culture. They resolved the issue by removing the irritant (and the corporate culture took a hit too, as people realized in general that a liberal interpretation of it was incompatible with the Civil Rights Act. You can't just say whatever internally).

Compare with Facebook still employing the guy who did an A/B test on whether emotional tone of stories make people sad. Once he realized why that was a problem, he owned up to it and is still doing research at Facebook.

> rather than enemy of one and hero to the other.

Meh. Check his Twitter these days and he's not really their hero; the Right lost interest in him when the labor relations board ruled his firing was legal (they don't want to make a headlong run into the Civil Rights Act either... it protects most voters, so it's very popular).

... and besides, sometimes being hero to none is the most dignified course of action. I can name several historical figures who made the choice to join a faction as a hero at the mere cost of spending their finite lives serving actual evil.

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

#619

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.

Has it actually served them well? How many of Google’s controversial launches have turned out well? The YouTube acquisition was risky but that was more on the commercial side than on the product side.

Apple is a different story of course.

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

#620
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the natural outcome of far leftist ideologies. People need to wake up and start rejecting this destructive ideology where a person is evaluated only based on their identity. I think MLK had something to say about that.

MLK explicitly supported affirmative action and other programs designed explicitly to benefit black people in order to make up for past discrimination. I suspect he would be tired of being used as a justification for absolute colorblindness.

So Affirmative Action is revenge discrimination?
Post reply on HN