Live data from Hacker News

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

vice.com

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971
lol:

"mom test

Don't use mom test, grandmother test, grandma test, or girlfriend test. Instead, use terms like beginner user test or novice user test."

https://developers.google.com/style/word-list#letter-m

Some of them make sense, some of them are ridiculous. The whole thing is entertaining, really.

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

#972

Virtue signaling is a hell of a drug. I tried to explain to someone online that the word black has many meanings, not every use of black is about people. Oh man, in the end I was "taught" that just by not accepting his ideas I was a racist person. My experience with this type of person is very bad. They are ignorant people, defending points without understanding the points. They are very aggressive and work in packs.…

>Oh man, in the end I was "taught" that just by not accepting his ideas I was a racist person.

All the hallmarks of a cult. Commit heresy and get excommunicated.

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

#973
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Encountering this aspect of the culture war always makes me wonder why are tech companies so focused on these gender minorities and not, say, on the disabled groups. There are more blind, deaf, mute (etc, etc) people in the US than transgender people who will bear a child. It would be equally incoherent to attempt to replace all usages of “see”, “hear” with “perceive”.

Oh, I have OPINIONS about why this might be, as someone who was one of the teenagers on LJ back when this weird ideology (the bastardization of intersectionality/identity politics that's taken over all non-right discussions) started. I'm a disabled lesbian, so I get a front row seat to how some forms of discrimination 'matter' more than others. It boils down to a few things: 1.) A lot of this identity politics is com…

>This is why the type of disability activism you see in identity politics is usually limited to mental illnesses

You are using the term "mental illness" in a way that seems to exclude people for whom it is obviously a disability. These people are characterized by:

1. One or more hospitalizations that are not voluntary.

2. Diagnosis by medical professionals, not psychologists or oneself.

3. Having to take medications forever, at least in order to be employable or generally take care of themselves, that cause substantial long term effects including diabetes, brain damage, disfiguring tics and involuntary movements, recurring tumors, sudden death, and other problems.

The people you are thinking of, who act like it is possible to normalize and be open about mental illness, are, let's say "type A", while I have defined above what I'll call "type B".

I just want to call your attention to the fact that "type B" people are erased as much or more by "type A" as the visibly disabled that you acknowledge. You are inadvertently promoting that erasure.

"Type B" people bridge both worlds but can't talk about it normally. I do recognize the emotions regarding "type A". I recognize why they do what they do, and I see you embracing their compulsive erasure from existence of "type B".

The issue of productivity is difficult, if you think there is a right answer. If someone can work, at incredible cost, should they not take pride? Yeah, it's luck that I, or anyone, can work, but you wouldn't sneer at someone with an intellectual disability that was bagging groceries, would you?

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

#974

I know "it's literally 1984" [1] is a meme but c'mon... This is ridiculous even for Google. The systematic deconstruction and sanitation of language so that it conforms to a particular group's ideological leanings is unacceptable, especially in the hand's of a mega corporation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

[deleted]

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

#975

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shall we write "they is pretty" or shall we wonder how many people we are talking about?

We shall wonder about the how many people. This is called the "singular they" and it has been a feature of English for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

Yes, I'm sure almost everyone reading this was already aware. This doesn't mean that "they are pretty. they are clever. they are ugly. they are good." is a good localization of "ő csinos. ő okos. ő csúnya. ő jó."

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

#976
post #973
post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I have OPINIONS about why this might be, as someone who was one of the teenagers on LJ back when this weird ideology (the bastardization of intersectionality/identity politics that's taken over all non-right discussions) started. I'm a disabled lesbian, so I get a front row seat to how some forms of discrimination 'matter' more than others. It boils down to a few things: 1.) A lot of this identity politics is com…

>This is why the type of disability activism you see in identity politics is usually limited to mental illnesses You are using the term "mental illness" in a way that seems to exclude people for whom it is obviously a disability. These people are characterized by: 1. One or more hospitalizations that are not voluntary. 2. Diagnosis by medical professionals, not psychologists or oneself. 3. Having to take medications…

I meant it in the way it's typically used in disabled spaces, where it's a contrast to physical disability because the two experiences are different. Mental illnesses are/ can be disabilities, I wouldn't disagree, but there are differences that make mental illness advocacy well-suited to an intersectional framework in ways that physical/intellectual disabilities aren't. (Since you mention them, intellectual disabilities are their own third, distinct category).

Mental disabilities are frequently easier to hide (much like being bi is easier to hide than being homosexual), which means that people with mental illnesses/disabilities are more likely to know how people treat them before and after finding out they're disabled (as opposed to someone whose disability is physical or intellectual who are more likely to always be seen as disabled and not see that on-off switch to ableism). People with mental illnesses are also more likely to have difficulties stemming from stigma and erasure vs. physical limits (I'm not saying any difficulties are worse than the others; they're just different) and intersectionality/identity politics has a lot of focus on correcting or changing behavior and thoughts to improve society.

Intersectionality/identity politics, in 2022, don't really do a great job at changing physical reality, which tends to be more necessary for physical and intellectual disability activism.

There are also historical reasons for the intertwining of mental illness advocacy and intersectionality (the rise of intersectionality/id politics in the upper-middle class coinciding with the rise of psychiatry/therapy/ the move to destigmatize mental illness, for example, whereas the sensory and physically disabled communities had their own activist movements/organizations for decades/centuries beforehand which made them more likely to have disagreements).

> Yeah, it's luck that I, or anyone, can work, but you wouldn't sneer at someone with an intellectual disability that was bagging groceries, would you?

Of course not, but I'm not a capitalist (or a communist, for that matter). The point is more that a lot of people into intersectional activism claim to also be anti-capitalist, but their embrace of diversity often depends on diverse people being able to work and if they advocated for the disabled, they'd have to confront that they can't use 'disabled people can do anything able bodied people can do' as a reason, which means they'd have to articulate some reason diversity matters other than to let marginalized people/ their pet companies make $$$.

I just think if said grocery bagger had to stop bagging groceries that they don't lose value as a human. Of course everyone should be proud of what they can contribute to society and their communities.

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

#977

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 chose my wording carefully to illustrate that the conveyance of emotion, even through jarring phrases, is an important part of language. You can absolutely disagree with the rhetorical style, but the point is there's a vast difference between your rebuttal to it and an ML mechanism built into your writing program that dissuades you from writing certain types of prose, or persuades you to use language that an opaque…

I got it, and I think my point still stands. Some of the problem here is Poe's Law:

> every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied

I could tell you were being sarcastic, but the fact remains your said what you said. Sarcasm is great for tearing bad things down, but useless for building anything to replace it.

I am not a fan of this Clippy shit either, but I can see value in things I don't like. The world needs more nuance, not less. And the world needs people to be willing to explain the nuance, not serve it as an inside joke for those who already get it.

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

#979
post #26
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…

As someone fairly familiar with the SJWs in a variety of FANGs, motherboard/mainboard doesn't even offend me any more. I kind of get it, even though it is lame logic. I'm waiting until they start marking "Latino" as non-inclusive, and start forcing "Latinx".

Meanwhile only 2% of Hispanics use the term Latinx, and 40% find it offensive: https://www.newsweek.com/just-2-percent-hispanics-use-term-l...

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

#980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I chose my wording carefully to illustrate that the conveyance of emotion, even through jarring phrases, is an important part of language. You can absolutely disagree with the rhetorical style, but the point is there's a vast difference between your rebuttal to it and an ML mechanism built into your writing program that dissuades you from writing certain types of prose, or persuades you to use language that an opaque…

I got it, and I think my point still stands. Some of the problem here is Poe's Law: > every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied I could tell you were being sarcastic, but the fact remains your said what you said. Sarcasm is great for tearing bad things down, but useless for building anything to replace it. I am not a fan of this Clippy shit eith…

But I just explained it, if not to you then to someone who didn't get it. I'm absolutely willing to delve into the machinery of anything to explain it. I'm not, however, willing to live in a world where everyone is encouraged to tailor their expressions to the lowest common denominator. The truth is that speaking to the LCD is pointless unless you're a populist who needs their vote, or otherwise need to manipulate them somehow. If as someone suggested (who said no one's using it to write Ulysses) the main use of Google Docs is to write promotional garbage for big corporations, then great. The popups can be called "be more anodyne and over-explain for idiots", instead of "inclusivity warning". I would support that.
Post reply on HN