←back to thread

45 points gmays | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
throwup238 ◴[] 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 #
drivebyhooting ◴[] 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 #
drivebyhooting ◴[] 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 #
Lerc ◴[] 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 #
drivebyhooting ◴[] No.41917040[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 #
1. thefaux ◴[] No.41918027{3}[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.