Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641
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.

What he stood for changed over time, but at one point he said he hoped the decisions people made about his children would be made based on his children's character and not the color of their skin.

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

#642
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…

Reminds me of when GitHub stopped using "master" for the default branch because it was somehow offensive.

I'm waiting for companies to demote anyone who had a promotion based on having a master's degree.

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

#643
post #480

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,…

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.

I mean - it feels like you’re creating a combative situation where one does not exist. “And just who are you?” - what is the point of that? To what end and whose benefit?

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

#644

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…

There's a market for 'help you write english better' tools that spot things like grammar errors. For example, if my english-as-a-second-language eastern European subordinates feel self-conscious about their english, they might find an automated tool helpful - where a professional journalist would be better served by their own judgement. The 'inclusive language' thing is just weird though.

There is a market for grammar checkers. Word has one for 30 years. But it doesn't try to turn your writing into a textual form of Alegria art.

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

#645
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> those who don't like that the concept of owning land exists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxRkHeQ7-B8 A caveat of bending over backwards to be as inclusive as possible is that sometimes you end up including people who are just plain nuts. You end up enshrining the personal problems of a handful of people into company policy.

> people who are just plain nuts

Are you suggesting that it's "plain nuts" to be against private ownership of land?

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

#646
post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion: `main` is better. It's shorter, it's more descriptive, and costs nothing to remove something someone might find offensive. It's pretty much an all around win.

> costs nothing to remove something someone might find offensive But there is a cost. You're losing a battle in the war of free speech vs Orwellian thought control. The woke (an offshoot of last-wave feminism, currently promoted mainly by the control-left strain of the Democratic party) are lying; they're not actually offended, they're just using that as an excuse (propaganda) and as an emotional appeal, to get you t…

I don't think Latinx is a good example. The GP mentions there's no functional cost to `main`, and this is true. Latinx has a functional cost in that the Spanish language literally does not support the phonetics of Latinx.

That phrase is going to die soon and it never picked up in Latin America. Most likely the queer community in Latin America will come up with more effective slang. It took the US queer community decades, a century? To reclaim and come up with effective phrases -- I think the main issue here is lack of patience and a somewhat condescending attitude from American liberals that we, the actual hispanic diaspora, need our hands held.

There is also what I've argued is a hierarchy of needs issue at play with LatinX. The problems facing the queer community in Latin America are more severe than those facing the US community, because it is a younger community in a more conservative atmosphere. Therefore, the effort is better spent advocating for table stakes, like marriage equality in some countries and reduced violence towards queer people -- there is no time to be wasted, right now, on the exact, precise terminology to use. And LatinX is not a way to win hearts and minds in this process.

Edit: this is NOT support for Google's product, which clearly broken and not useful. This is an explanation of why LatinX specifically is not a good counter-example to `main` versus `master`. I hope this pre-empts someone coming in and calling me all 'woke' or whatever is the cool phrase for dismissing people these days.

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

#647
post #301
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who also works at Google, I agree that there is a vocal minority who want Google to be a promoter of progressive values, but: I think you nay be exaggerating things here. I've never even heard of any controversy over the word "motherboard". I just did some internal searches. It seems to be a well-used word, both in code and in documentation. (I did a code search for both "motherboard" and "mainboard" and t…

"Allowlist" and "denylist" are sonically awkward. Why not "inlist" and "outlist"?

I'm still not sure why blocklist wasn't the goto replacement. Depending on your accent, you might not even notice!

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

#648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This explanation rings a lot more true to me than the rest of this thread. Everyone here seems to be looking into shadows for the woke gestapo, when I'd be willing to bet that this explanation is a lot closer to how this tool actually came to exist. I appreciate you adding to the conversation.

It's a little of both. There's enough woke influence over corporate communication to drive all employees to want to avoid non-inclusive words in docs. At that point, this becomes useful even for employees who don't agree with it—I'd rather just have the word flagged now and fix it instead of going back and forth later. However, the net result is that words are driven out of the language even if everyone involved in t…

>However, the net result is that words are driven out of the language even if everyone involved in the document wouldn't care.

No one uses "fuck" in corporate communication either. Is anyone worried about that word being "driven out of the language"? I don't think corporate speech is as influential in overall language use as you are implying.

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

#649

The older I get, the more I fail to understand how the vocal minority is able to completely control the narrative on everything. While we’re at it, let’s just gut the English language of anything remotely related to gender, race, or color. Then we can go after Latin-based languages that use gender at the core of their grammar.

Irrelevant nitpick: "gender" in linguistics means "category". Objects in grammatically gendered languages are rarely/never categorized as "manly" or "effeminate"; they're, for example, categorized as "animate" or "inanimate". [1]

[1] https://blog.duolingo.com/what-is-grammatical-gender/

Post reply on HN