|
| ▲ | kbelder 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't know that I've ever seen a reasonable accusation of 'dogwhistling' on HN. They always just make the accuser seem paranoid or evasive. |
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m not wasting my time accusing. Downvote, flag, move on. Maybe that’s why you didn’t see any. |
|
|
| ▲ | NickHodges0702 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I would think/hope that both of those comments would be flagged with even a small amount of moderation set. Avoiding that kind of comment is exactly what we are trying to do, actually. |
| |
| ▲ | coleworld45 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes I agree, but the problem I'm pointing out is that in a phrase as simple as "X person sucks" your system flagged one as implicitly racist because the person being criticized was black. Nothing in "Obama sucks" implied any kind of racism. If it's so baked in that with a simple phrase like that it reaches for dogwhistles, how can anyone trust the objectivity of this? | | |
| ▲ | NickHodges0702 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | I totally agree -- just saying "Obama sucks" shouldn't have racism become part of the equation. Excellent point that we'll stew on and try to make better. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NickHodges0702 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yep, I agree -- it is a double standard... but...... Very sensitive topic. We'll think hard on how to handle things like that. |
|
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > Ignoring what is hopefully sarcasm on the empirical part… I mean, in my opinion, Trump empirically sucks. Opinion polling backs me up! Should the model consider that more people consider one or the other to suck? Or should it ignore factual information to spare feelings? Which approach is more respectful to fellow commenters and the website owner? (See also: X considering "cisgender" a slur. There's no shared reality on a lot of these things; trying to construct one gets deeply difficult.) |
| |
| ▲ | eucyclos 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Should the model consider that more people consider one or the other to suck? If it's teaching how to avoid logical fallacies, which includes appeals to the majority, the answer is an obvious 'no'. | |
| ▲ | coleworld45 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In other opinion polls they back up that he doesn't suck. Either way who cares? That's not what the app is supposed to be about if it's teaching/correcting you how to argue/debate better. You completely ignored the whole point of what I said, which is that even in a simple statement like "This person sucks" it added its own implicit connotations, namely that disliking someone who happens to be black is implicit racism. Imagine trying to learn how to really argue with that kind of teacher. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm really expanding on your point - that two humans can't even agree here. The AI probably has even less chance of resolving the multi-factorial scenario we're in. | | |
| ▲ | Supermancho 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | AFAICT, Respectify is trying to address improvements via leveraged grammar using minimal context. Dis/agreement is incidental. eg * Noun1 is great. * Noun2 is great. Ideally would result in equal outcomes. | | |
| |
| ▲ | goatlover 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Whose discourse do you think the app would label as more toxic, Trump's or Obama's? |
|
|
