Most active commenters
  • drivebyhooting(4)

←back to thread

The human cost of our AI-driven future

(www.noemamag.com)
45 points gmays | 13 comments | 22 Oct 24 15:17 UTC | HN request time: 1.45s | source | bottom
Show context
throwup238 ◴[22 Oct 24 17:06 UTC] No.41916343[source]▶
> Sarcasm, cultural context and subtle forms of hate speech often slip through the cracks of even the most sophisticated algorithms.

I don't know how this problem can be solved automatically without something that looks a lot like AGI and can monitor the whole internet to learn the evolving cultural context. AI moderation feels like self driving cars all over again: the happy path of detecting and censoring a dick pic - or self driving in perfect California weather - is relatively easy but automating the last 20% or so of content seems impossibly out of reach.

The "subtle forms of hate speech" is especially hard and nebulous, as dog whistles in niche communities change adversarialy to get past moderation. In the most subtle of cases, there are a lot of judgement calls to make. Then each instance of these AGIs would have to be run in and tailored to local jurisdictions and cultures because that is its own can of worms. I just don't see tech replacing humans in this unfortunate role, only augmenting their abilities.

> The glossy veneer of the tech industry conceals a raw, human reality that spans the globe. From the outskirts of Nairobi to the crowded apartments of Manila, from Syrian refugee communities in Lebanon to the immigrant communities in Germany and the call centers of Casablanca, a vast network of unseen workers power our digital world.

This part never really changed. Mechanical turk is almost 20 years old at this point and call center outsourcing is hardly new. What's new is just how much human-generated garbage we force them to sift through on our behalf. I wish there was a way to force these training data and moderation companies to provide proper mental health care .

replies(8): >>41916410 #>>41916493 #>>41916524 #>>41916596 #>>41916819 #>>41917288 #>>41917660 #>>41917936 #
1. drivebyhooting ◴[22 Oct 24 17:23 UTC] No.41916493[source]▶
What is a dog whistle? Is it just an opinion people disagree with and so rather than engage with it they assume malice or ill intent?

I really don’t get it.

replies(4): >>41916512 #>>41916517 #>>41916570 #>>41917697 #
2. ◴[22 Oct 24 17:25 UTC] No.41916512[source]▶
3. kevingadd ◴[22 Oct 24 17:25 UTC] No.41916517[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_whistle_(politics)

To simplify, dog whistles make a sound that's too high pitched for most humans to hear, but only dogs can hear it.

So it's speech that the speaker's ingroup recognizes as meaning something other than what the literal interpretation would mean. It's coded speech, usually for racist, sexist or even violent purposes.

An adjacent concept is giving orders without giving orders, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

4. drivebyhooting ◴[22 Oct 24 17:30 UTC] No.41916570[source]▶
Yes I too can google. And in fact I did. Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself.

Meanwhile a small consolation is that https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/06/17/against-dog-whistles/ agrees with me. So I’m in decent company.

replies(2): >>41916822 #>>41917419 #
5. Lerc ◴[22 Oct 24 17:52 UTC] No.41916822[source]▶
Ever watch the West Wing? The first episode should do it.

One of the signs of dog whistle use is the situations in which the term is used that raises probability beyond the credible level of coincidence.

replies(1): >>41917040 #
6. drivebyhooting ◴[22 Oct 24 18:13 UTC] No.41917040{3}[source]▶
I don’t watch TV.

To my mind, this dog whistle moniker is more of a tool for suppressing dissenting views than identifying covert bigotry.

Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated. The others are shunned as racists or worse.

replies(3): >>41917346 #>>41917497 #>>41918027 #
7. neaden ◴[22 Oct 24 18:42 UTC] No.41917346{4}[source]▶
This is a world where Donald Trump, the man who calls his political opponent mentally disabled among other things is a serious front runner for the highest office in the nation. I have no idea how you can look at contemporary America and say people aren't allowed to say offensive things.
8. arp242 ◴[22 Oct 24 18:51 UTC] No.41917419[source]▶
> Evidently questioning the validity of dog whistle is a dog whistle itself.

I don't see anyone saying that.

9. shadowgovt ◴[22 Oct 24 18:58 UTC] No.41917497{4}[source]▶
> Apparently all the critical thinking has already been done off stage

In general, yes: there is a long history of conversation on various topics, actions that have caused trust levels to be preset among various groups, and meta-symbols constructed atop that information. Those new to the conversation may be unaware of the context.

> and now only those whom we agree with are tolerated

I'm not sure who "we" is in that context. In the US, currently, the polity is very divided because sevaral key events have, in a sense, caused "mask off" to occur in the mainstream of both political parties that makes it difficult for anyone to believe one of them is willing to share power.

(as a side note: rhetorical questions don't usually convey well through text media. If you didn't literally mean "I really don't get it" when you said you didn't get it, making clear you are being rhetorical could be considered polite).

replies(1): >>41917634 #
10. drivebyhooting ◴[22 Oct 24 19:14 UTC] No.41917634{5}[source]▶
“Those new to the conversation” I find this hilariously un-inclusive. Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary?

Perhaps the nation’s division is evidence of the lack of genuine sharing of ideas? Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety? Workplace? Obviously not. Online forum? Downvotes, brigadding, and generally lack of tolerance.

Small wonder that I’m not being persuaded and neither are you.

replies(1): >>41917743 #
11. samatman ◴[22 Oct 24 19:19 UTC] No.41917697[source]▶
Dog whistling is when a politician from the outgroup says something, and the ingroup wants him to have said something else, so they say "dog whistle" and put the offending meaning in his mouth as a replacement for what was actually said.
12. shadowgovt ◴[22 Oct 24 19:23 UTC] No.41917743{6}[source]▶
> Do you expect young adults to come out of school with the correct doctrine in place so that no further thinking or discourse is necessary?

Definitely not. I do expect them to listen before speaking out. It was a hard lesson I myself had to learn when I was one of those young adults coming out of school. Sometimes, conventional wisdom is just accrued prejudice. Sometimes it is accrued experience and people are as they are for a reason. It's probably best to have enough information to know before staking a position openly and pushing other people off their own.

> Where would one go to have an intellectual discussion in safety?

Traditionally? The bar. I'm not even kidding. This is the kind of thing people discuss face-to-face most effectively. We do less of that these days.

13. thefaux ◴[22 Oct 24 19:52 UTC] No.41918027{4}[source]▶
I'm not here to change your mind, but dog whistling is a time honored political tradition. Lee Atwater famously explained how it works in a 1981 interview. It gives you plausible deniability to wrap sentiments that would be offensive to some of your supporters if said directly in a more indirect and/or abstract way such that those you're trying to reach will fill in the parts you left out.

A relatively small share of people openly identify as racist, but many, if not most, people hold at least some racist views since these are the cultural waters we swim in. Dog whistling lets you have it both ways. When called out, the offender can always say: that's not what I meant or I was just joking. Then they can accuse the others of deliberately misconstruing their statements. And how the listener responds is largely a function of their prior beliefs. Again, most people don't want to think of themselves as racist so they will be generous to the dog whistler since to admit there was racism (or whatever ism) in the statement of someone they support would implicate them. And to the people it was intended, they will believe that the dog whistler is denying it not because they don't believe it but because they need to do so politically.