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

831–840 of 1001 posts

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

#831

Post by visarga »

drdeca wrote: post #149
reaperducer wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it contains "lord" which is a male term I didn't think of that. I always thought of it as "lording over" something. As in she's the "lord of the land." That said, a landlord and a property owner are not the same thing. Many (most?) apartment buildings are owned by one company and managed by another.

nearest((lord) + (woman) - (man),excluding=[(lord)])==(lady)

A word2vec proof, I like that you took care to exclude the original word, it often comes up with a higher score than the intended target.

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

#833

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #805
rayiner wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t overlook the role that white progressives play in selectively amplifying minority voices. I can’t get on CNN to give the “Bangladeshi guy take” on rising crime by saying stuff most Bangladeshi people agree with. I have to provide a Bangladeshi perspective that is appealing to the white progressives that make the decisions at CNN. There’s a deep synergy here that exploits the fact that most Americans have li…

> And I’ll tell you that most desis are closer to Tulsi Gabbard than Harris. Including the Russia stuff—given India’s long-standing affinity with Russia. No surprise there: Modi is a conservative populist who could make Trump blush, and is very popular (and polarizing) in India. I’m not sure how the translates to Indian Americans, Indian politics isn’t very portable.

[deleted]

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

#834

Post by epivosism »

Spivak wrote: post #830
epivosism wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Yeah, I appreciate the sentiment and I don't think most of it is out of ill-will. I just think it's ineffective. I'd rather just accept the need to educate every generation of its own responsibility for treating people fairly - rather than pretend that fixing words would make a difference.

There are also cases like "white-glove" where the phrase doesn't just represent the stereotypical "white = good & black = bad" - there is real meaning here, since white is a color which makes dust more visible.

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

#835

Post by thimblesand »

userbinator wrote: post #764

The good news is that those who are against this stuff may be pleased to know you're not alone --- roughly half of the Americans on one side of the political spectrum would agree with you. The bad news is that Google and seemingly the rest of Big Tech are all sitting solidly on one side, and amongst all this "diversity and inclusion" talk, there is basically no thought given about diversity and inclusion of the polit…

It's likely more than just half. Over on the non-performative left side this would just get used as another example of companies trying to win woke points instead of doing anything materially beneficial in late stage capitalism, and that the hogs will eat up their slop.

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

#836

Post by ajyotirmay »

I still wonder, how blacklist/whitelist or master/slave has helped or promoted slavery and racism.

And how many devs who are from black communities offended by the use of these terms, at least before it was made to be an issue in mainstream.

Because right now I feel like this is a "woke feminist" issue.

And I'm not a white person. I've never thought otherwise of these words, but maybe that can be because of the mixed society I grew up in.

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

#837

Post by _Nat_ »

> [..] typed “annoyed” and Google suggested he change it to “angry” or “upset” to “make your writing flow better.”

Why would their algorithm do this?

Like, whether that's a bug or intended, how could their algorithm have ended up suggesting that "annoyed" was non-inclusive?

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

#838

Post by Spivak »

epivosism wrote: post #834
Spivak wrote: post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, I appreciate the sentiment and I don't think most of it is out of ill-will. I just think it's ineffective. I'd rather just accept the need to educate every generation of its own responsibility for treating people fairly - rather than pretend that fixing words would make a difference. There are also cases like "white-glove" where the phrase doesn't just represent the stereotypical "white = good & black = bad" -…

I completely agree, although in my own writing I would probably avoid white-glove not because of any race association but again because it’s an idiom that you have to have existing context to know. If your upbringing didn’t make you associate white gloves with fastidious butlers then you will probably be confused. You might instead associate cleanliness with the yellow gloves worn by many cleaning staff.

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

#839

Post by seattle_spring »

ngngngng wrote: post #744
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.

"Fuck" and "badass" are relatively common in job postings in Utah. I assume it's because people from out of state are worried they'll join a company with a bunch of stiff Mormons so we need a signal to let them know that's not the case. Benefit #1 on the list is beer on Fridays. Anyway, that's what scares me about this, I like language naturally evolving like it is in the above example, to address a specific communic…

Relatively common? Can you share links to 2 examples?
Post reply on HN