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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by DangitBobby »

shp0ngle wrote: post #334
user3939382 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we're going to play this game, I think dissuading people from using "mother" in the example of "motherboard" is offensive. Mothers are the source of human life on earth, and in that capacity are revered and honored. When we say motherboard, we're making an analogy that suggests the board's significance and universal connection to everything. To discourage the term as an analogy for things that are a universal sour…

The official PC term is now “birthing person”, “birthing people”, “people giving birth” and similar. Think of that what you will.

I don't believe you.

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

#822

Post by Underphil »

Macha wrote: post #681
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #516

Am I the only one starting to get a little worried what will happen when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way?

Isn't this already happening with the don't say gay people?

Yeah, that's a fair example. Every pendulum swings back eventually. And caught in the middle is the majority who were just fine with the status quo.

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

#823

Post by hrwf82M »

xg15 wrote: post #83
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…

Out of couriosity: Why then didn't flag it the actual n-word of all things? > A transcribed interview of neo-Nazi and former Klan leader David Duke—in which he uses the N-word and talks about hunting Black people—gets no notes. Edit: Also interesting that this comment is dropping like a stone in HN's comment ranking, even though currently the comment score is at 1. If I accidentally triggered some anti-flame or anti-…

Because it's not a list of "banned words". It's a list of words or phrases that might accidentally cause offense (apparently similar to some of the entries on the public style guide: https://developers.google.com/style/word-list).

For that role, there's no need to include the n-word, because nobody is going to accidentally put that in a press release.

(Of course, the lists were apparently compiled by total dorks who put in things like "terminate", "dummy variable", and "native". But the list being dumb is a separate issue from it from what you raise).

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

#824

Post by evocatus »

cornel_io wrote: post #815
slg wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

If you don't use "fuck" in corporate communication, you're not doing it right. Use swears very sparingly (not in every email or presentation, for sure) and only deliberately for emphasis when you need a little shock. Especially effective when the leadup is really dry.

Correct. There is a time and a place for a little cognitive shock and awe to shake loose the cobwebs of stagnant thought.

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

#826

Post by Underphil »

nullc wrote: post #577
filoleg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am fine with "blocklist" instead of "blacklist", because it sounds similar. But "allowlist" is just more difficult to pronounce. Regarding your concern about people for whom English isn't the first language, I dont know how valid it is. Because those terms exist under the same names and fall under the same usage in many other languages. I can confirm that it is the case with Russian, as "черный список" is a commonl…

> I am fine with "blocklist" instead of "blacklist" Better hope you're not dealing with a block device or other data structure that involves units of data called blocks.

"Is it in the Blocklist?"

"Which one, the deny list or the list of blocks?".

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

#827

Post by Underphil »

trollied wrote: post #393
foofoo4u wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may very well may be right that terms "allowlist" and "blocklist" are objectively clearer. I'm in favor of the idea of changing language to make things clearer and more effective. But the contention I have is that these changes aren't motivated for the pursuit of clarity. They are motivated by a need for cleansing. "whitelist" and "blacklist" are innocuous terms. They have been around for ages. Used and understoo…

As I posted to a child: Language also adapts over decades so that words are computer/IT terms & have no other connotations. Like most of the stuff in this thread. Have a think about that.

Unless there is proof that whitelist & blacklist (as terms) were ratified around 'white people good, black people bad' then it is just personal offence at that point.

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

#828

Post by oefrha »

noduerme wrote: post #803

This link in the article is insanely, crazily, madly, insultingly sickening to anyone who's not a slave. As I read it I felt like it was some kind of parody of Orwell. Disgusting to tell someone what verbiage they use sincerely and in technical terms is now verboten because it's harmful. To whom? Crazy people? https://developers.google.com/style/inclusive-documentation

Geez, that word list.

Here’s an idea. American Big Tech should form a Uniban Consortium to streamline the process of adding and banning new harmful words of the month. Then your OS update could come with support for, say, Unicode 20.0 and Uniban 6.0: five new emojis and fifty new words banned!

Btw, the word main should probably be put on a future batch; too similar to “man” to be comfortable.

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

#829

Post by Underphil »

madamelic wrote: post #189
dymk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the word "objectively" means Whitelist and blacklist are the words we've been using for decades to describe a concept. Everybody knows what they mean.

> words we've been using for decades to describe a concept. Yeah, and so was calling black men "boy" or using the n-word like 50 years ago. Language changes because people realize there are better words that more people are okay with.

Are you genuinely suggesting that using the n-word and asking the network team to add an IP to a blacklist come from the same moral place?

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

#830

Post by Spivak »

epivosism wrote: post #812
epivosism wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guide is interesting in how it lists allegedly immoral language use, alongside with clear PR/legal/trademark directives which I don't give a fuck about, such as "don't use google as a verb". I'll google whatever I want, google PR, go suck an egg. Also quite annoying how they simply tell us what to do, without justifying things. A lot of these would be quite hard to truly argue - i.e. "blind people... can't see t…

"Avoid using gray-box, graybox, or gray box to describe testing." "grayed-out, greyed-out, gray out, grey out Don't use. Instead, use unavailable." WTF are these people on about. Oh it's because they hate certain color words such as "black" and "white", words used by humans to indicate certain reflectivity properties of light; since it would be weird to only prohibit words which contain white or black, they just exte…

It’s not a race thing, it’s a disability thing — “greyed out” is only something that makes sense to someone who can see, it’s confusing the actual concept with the visual indicator of the concept.

It’s the same with “the box is checked” to mean “selected” or “redlining a contract” to mean “negotiating.”

The point of inclusive language isn’t some weird political points contest. It’s writing in a manner that’s clear to people of lots of different backgrounds and doesn’t rely on just having to know English idioms or have common shared experiences. Why is blacklist the one that excludes and whitelist the one that includes — you just have to know, English right? But you can avoid the need for that entirely by allowlist and denylist.

Post reply on HN