←back to thread

45 points gmays | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.522s | 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 #
hcurtiss ◴[] No.41916819[source]
I think there's a genuine conversation to be had about whether there even is such a thing as "hate speech." There's certainly "offensive speech," but if that's what we're going to try to eliminate, then it seems we'll have a bad time as the offense is definitionally subjective.
replies(5): >>41916885 #>>41916918 #>>41917083 #>>41917089 #>>41917466 #
mewpmewp2 ◴[] No.41917089[source]
There is a definition for hate speech though.
replies(2): >>41917142 #>>41918427 #
baggy_trough ◴[] No.41918427[source]
What do you think the definition is?
replies(1): >>41919197 #
mewpmewp2 ◴[] No.41919197[source]
Any speech (or well communications) that intends to incite violence or general harm on groups of people or a person with certain characteristics such as age, sex, orientation, race, etc.

E.g. "X race/gender/sexual orientation are bad for the society for reason Y, and therefore they should be treated with Z (a negative consequence)"

So intending to call out harm because of certain inherent characteristics a group of people have, and such characteristics that are not harmful for the society.

replies(1): >>41919396 #
1. belorn ◴[] No.41919396[source]
People will endlessly argue over what "incite violence or general harm" actually mean, and they will also endlessly argue over if something should be considered an implied "characteristics of age, sex, orientation, race, etc".

Currently there is an ongoing court case regarding the case where a person criticized and made offensive statements about Muhammad, and if that should count as inciting violence or general harm against Muslims. One side is arguing that any negative statements about Muhammad is veiled statements directed against Muslims as a group, and the other side is arguing it is criticism against the religion and not about people who believe in that religion. People did similar arguments with Monty Python movie Life of Brian.

When it comes to symbols like flags, people often characteristic any action (positive and negative) as a form of hate speech if they dislike it, or as important symbolic gestures when they like it. Burning flags get often called hate speech, and forbidding people from waving flags (including general rules against all flags for specific events) has also been called hate speech.

replies(1): >>41919504 #
2. mewpmewp2 ◴[] No.41919504[source]
What was the negative statement? To me the logic is that:

1. Criticising a religion != hate speech, or generally making fun of or criticising any sort of religious figure like Muhammad or Jesus != hate speech.

2. Calling out for a group of people of certain religion to have X negative consequences = hate speech.