Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

941–950 of 1001 posts

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

#941
post #939

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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. I don't think efficiency and universal comprehension is the point at all . Deaf people understand the phrase "loud and clear" just as well as hearing people. Blind people…

You are assuming so much about what I said. Writing inclusively is not for everyone all of the time, it’s when you’re writing to the broadest possible audience and clarity, ease of understanding, and accessibility are paramount. > Is your idea of perfect communication something that omits every daily experience… No, what? It’s about avoiding terms where the context for understanding them are experiences not everyone…

>> Given a hypothetical world where the choice was language color and including groups different from your own experience you really picked the former?

The real choice being presented is between a world where language has many colors as used by many groups when talking within and between groups, and one where everything is supposed to be "inclusive"... an idea based on the feelings or hypothetical feelings of some person, somewhere. You think we should all adjust our language and it's worth removing any color to accommodate that hypothetical person's feelings, and I think that's not only insane, it's an attempt to use phoney virtue to dictate to and feel power over others.

You may as well ask whether I'd choose a world where everyone spoke English rather than one which excluded people by some groups speaking their own language. There are, in fact, linguistic supremacists who think like this, and can frame it as an argument for "inclusivity"... e.g. the Chinese government. What it really amounts to is cultural imperialism.

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

#942

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…

So, progressive groups support minorities, and then promote minorities with progressive opinions, and you don't like that because you're a minority with non-progressive views and feel underrepresented? I'm not sure I see the problem here? If there is a problem isn't it because minority groups that support regressive politics (say like the 'log cabin Republicans') don't get promoted by their fellow regressives as much…

> So, progressive groups support minorities, and then promote minorities with progressive opinions

Progressives promote minorities with progressive opinions and pass those progressive opinions off as representative of those minority groups. White progressives self-consciously wear that label; non-white progressives invoke their ethnic identity without the progressive qualifier.

Progressives in media, academia, and politics often use their institutional power to manipulate the public narrative surrounding minorities. As my dad once lamented, "CNN made Ilhan Omar into the face of American Muslims."

> you don't like that because you're a minority with non-progressive views and feel underrepresented?

I personally don't like it because I have fairly typical views for my minority group and I don't like being misrepresented. I'd like a more honest public discourse that acknowledges something like "brown people love Obamacare, but really don't want their young kids learning about sex."

More importantly, it disenfranchises the very minorities these progressives purport to speak for.

It enables white progressives to hijack the political power of minorities within the broader center and center left (Democrats and Democrat leaners). For a spell in 2020, progressives turned "Defund the Police" into the "Black" position on policing, and weaponized claims of "racism" against anyone who opposed violent protests and riots. They got the Op-Ed guy at the New York Times fired for publishing a piece by Tom Cotton about putting a stop to the riots. Lots of well-meaning white people care what Black people think about policing, and they are terrified of being called racist, so they put up BLM signs on their lawns and reposted quotes like "riots are the voice of the unheard."

Of course Black people didn't want to Defund the Police, and they don't like riots. When Larry Hogan sent in the Maryland National Guard to put a stop to the Freddie Gray riots, his approval rating in majority-Black Baltimore soared over 70%: https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/bal-maryland-gov-larry.... Luckily this ended with respect to this specific issue because people like Eric Adams were in a position to call out the white progressives: https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-adams-defund-the-police... ("NYC mayoral candidate Eric Adams says 'young white affluent people' lead the 'defund the police' movement").

This happens on issue after issue: progressives claim the moral high ground by purporting to speak on behalf of minorities while advancing policies those minorities actually oppose. For example, you see all these moves toward race-conscious hiring driven by progressives on behalf of Black and Hispanic people. But most Black and Hispanic people oppose such policies: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/9/18538216/diversity-workplace-pe....

In some cases, this interferes with the ability of minority groups to advocate for their own personal safety. During the increase in crimes against Asian Americans in NYC and SF, CNN was full of Asian activists and academics who stressed the importance of non-white solidarity and not letting the violence derail efforts at criminal justice reform. The Asian American activists platformed by progressives care primarily about maintaining solidarity with other progressive groups, not about the unique interests of Asian Americans: https://www.slowboring.com/p/yang-gang?s=r.

But Asian American communities face fundamentally different trade-offs with respect to over-policing versus under-policing compared to other minorities. A white American is three times more likely to be shot by a cop as an Asian American. Asian American voters thus strongly supported Andrew Yang in NYC, and large numbers defected for Curtis Sliwa in the general election. Manipulation by white progressives impaired the ability for Asian Americans to advocate for their own interests.

Fundamentally, white progressives who participate in ethnic identity politics have a conflict of interest. They have tremendous incentives to use their larger numbers and institutional power to advance their own interests, not those of minority groups: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/ ("White elites —who play an outsized role in defining racism in academia, the media, and the broader culture — instead seem to define ‘racism’ in ways that are congenial to their own preferences and priorities.").

> so that everyone can see that not all minorities are progressive

Most minorities aren't progressives. Progressives are whiter on average than the population as a whole, and about as white as traditional conservatives: https://hiddentribes.us/profiles (80% white for progressives, 70% white for traditional conservatives). If you disaggregate say Asian Americans into finer groups than just "Democrat" and "Republican," you'd see that most are moderates, the next biggest chunk are moderate conservatives, and progressives make up a relatively small fraction.

The ones that are progressive (mostly Latinos) are much more likely to be Bernie-style economic progressives than to embrace the intersectional progressivism of Elizabeth Warren. In the 2020 Democratic Primary, Bernie won Latinos in California with 45%. Warren placed fourth with just 7%, lower than Mike Bloomberg. Among Black voters in Virginia, Biden won 63%, and Warren again placed fourth behind Mike Bloomberg, with just 7%.

In fact, Warren was actually never a viable candidate in a Democratic Party that relies on southwestern Latino and southern Black voters to win elections: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/elizabeth-warren-boo... (" In February 2020, New York Times reporter Astead Herndon detailed how Warren’s success with Black and Latino political activists had yielded barely any support among actual Black and Latino voters."). But we were subjected to months of white progressives in media treating her like a frontrunner because they thought that the ethnic minority activists she had on stage with her represented real support from ethnic minorities.

> and some want to work together to hold back minority groups they aren't part of?

Minorities have their own ideas of what policies are good for them, and for the most part they're different from what progressives believe. They should be able to advocate for those interests without white progressives using their institutional power and donor dollars to drown out their voices on issues that concern them.

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

#943
post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with “white” and everything to do with regressive left. Here is Kamala Harris, an Indian-Black American, pushing “Latinx”: https://mobile.twitter.com/kamalaharris/status/1290733001320...

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…

>. 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.

Well you have to appeal to your audience. If you speak as a Bangladeshi how much would the average American member of the audience understand? If the Bangladeshi take is similar to the average Indian take I'm used to, rising crime rates would probably be explained by something like "all these people are corrupt. That's what Indians do instead of doing it the right way they just try to find a shortcut and take from others. Badmaasha do this and ruin the country".

Of course they don't mean that literally the whole country is corrupt and all Indians are awful, but people not from there wouldn't understand that it's an exaggeration. They just don't have the cultural context to understand how to interpret that. The American way of communicating is not so on the nose, in fact it minimizes negatives and tries to avoid generalizing at all. So again, i don't think they would understand it would just sounds vaguely racist to the average American. So I'm not sure what Bangladeshi view you're talking about is but context really matters.

And most of the desis I know support Harris over Gabard. Surprise surprise-- you cannot easily generalize the views of large groups, especially based on anecdotal evidence. Being Desi has little to do with it.

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

#944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These people remind me of crusaders a thousand years ago, fighting the "infidels" all over. In fact, the whole body of thought governing them reminds me too much of the Latin Church. I have no words to express how I detest the kind of thinking behind them.

How many people have these people killed and how many wars have they started in the name of inclusivity?

Well.. tbh some feminists supported the Afghanistan war based on "feminist grounds". Of course in reality the situation was only made much worse for women. No side is free of making bad choices

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

#945
post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like an odd example. The "specific intention" of the word "slave" in computing is unquestionably to draw an analogy to slavery, so if somebody objects to the word on the grounds that it references an actual atrocity, they're factually correct. I think what you're trying to say is that people don't mean to be offensive when they reference slavery this way. And you're right about that. Similarly, if I ask so…

Why is an analogy to slavery a bad thing? Such that even references to the concept need to banned The Partition of India was a horrific tragedy and killed 2 million people. Does this mean we should do away with partition_sort ?

I mean it isn't killing people, but it is admittedly strange. How about if instead you use Dominatrix and Sub? Or Officer and Prisoner?

Would those not be inappropriate because it's just borrowing terminology?

There are only a few of these progressive changes I find really valid, but this is one I can understand. It's not that it's killing people, it's just if we can change it then why not. It is kind of weird to use, given the history of slavery in the majority of the world. Can't we just not have references to slavery in the BIOS of my computer?

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

#946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, progressive groups support minorities, and then promote minorities with progressive opinions, and you don't like that because you're a minority with non-progressive views and feel underrepresented? I'm not sure I see the problem here? If there is a problem isn't it because minority groups that support regressive politics (say like the 'log cabin Republicans') don't get promoted by their fellow regressives as much…

The problem lies in the question of whether one can truly "support minorities" if you generally disregard their views and culture and only elevate their voices insofar as they agree with your politics. With conservatives do this, they're accused of tokenism and pandering.

I've been genuinely surprised at how immune white progressives seem to be to polling on what minorities support, even on issues relating primarily to minorities.

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

#947
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'm 33, but the reason I chose 2005 was because it was the latest year that I was sure was before "wokeness" was a thing. I also live in the rural Midwest, so I figured that was about how far in the past you on the coast think we are with this sort of thing - and you'd be right, to an extent.

Which means you were 17 in 2005 which fits my theory perfectly. "Wokeness" might not be a term that existed in 2005, but like I said, there were multiple waves of the same ideal going back before 2005. Maybe you should examine why you are ok with the "political correctness" wave of the 90s and not the "wokeness" wave of the last decade plus. Is it potentially because you didn't see the earlier waves in real-time as a mature adult?

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

#948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wage numerous wars, but the playing field is not full of swords and shields, but reputation destruction, intimidation, doxing, canceling, etc. The digital and public life is so important for many people today that, if you eliminate them there, it's like killing a good chunk of their lives. These people wage crusades against individual reputations and public/digital lives. Just because they think differently.

So like killing except for all the "not killing." So not like killing at all. It is, however, a bit like building an orthodoxy. Which the group formerly in position to build orthodoxy is surprised to learn is an uncomfortable process.

My reading is the only thing preventing a considerable portion of them from killing is law enforcement, and the fact that most societies has evolved past supporting violence.

You have to observe that deadly violence was normalized in the past.

It was even entertainment in Rome. Hence, the Colloseum.

Externally, it's evolved, but internally the ideolog is quite similar.

Some of the similarities are:

- divides men and women

- interferes and intends to control families

- demonizes people that are useful to society and accumulate wealth

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

#949
post #943

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…

>. 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. Well you have to appeal to your audience. If you speak as a Bangladeshi how much would the average American member of the audience understand? If the Bangladeshi take is simil…

> Well you have to appeal to your audience. If you speak as a Bangladeshi how much would the average American member of the audience understand?

That's why I don't like the whole business of identity politics. It creates this situation where the minorities you see on TV speaking for minority groups are the ones who are saying the things white people want to hear.

> And most of the desis I know support Harris over Gabard.

I'm not talking about overall support, but instead the particular attacks white Democrats aimed at Gabbard in the 2020 primary (pre-Fox News appearances). It was over things where Gabbard was taking a position that was different from white Democrats, but typical of desis.

I think it’s fair to say that Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi Democrats are typically more socially conservative than white Democrats. Likewise, Indians and Bangladeshis often have an affinity for Russia arising from those countries' alignment with the Soviet Union. E.g.: https://www.telegraphindia.com/culture/books/bengalis-and-th....

I found it weird for white people to be talking so much about south asian identity on one hand, while attacking a south Asian woman in a nasty way for having opinions that a lot of south Asian women have.

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

#950

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's the worst thing to encourage people too be thoughtful about their word choice. Is it really "crazy", or are you selling an emotional reaction by personifying your topic as a mentally deranged person? I actually think steering clear of this language is helpful in defusing the outrage culture that is so harmful to our online discourse.

I don't think these guys are trying to encourage people to be thoughtful, despite what they may claim - it feels more like one tribe using the power of google to try and control another tribe. Giving these dummies what they want won't defuse anything. Thus far, doing so has not retarded the progress of this sort of language policing, but has led to increasingly insane demands. It's like handing your lunch money over…

What you wrote is much more emotionally powerful than what I wrote because of your strong language and metaphor (dummies, lunatics, control, insane, bullying). I think many people would prefer that arguments stand on their substance instead of catering to people's lizard brains.
Post reply on HN