Slashdot Mirror
Google Says AI Better Than Humans At Scrubbing Extremist YouTube Content (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Google has pledged to continue developing advanced programs using machine learning to combat the rise of extremist content, after it found that it was both faster and more accurate than humans in scrubbing illicit content from YouTube. The company is using machine learning along with human reviewers as part of a mutli-pronged approach to tackle the spread of extremist and controversial videos across YouTube, which also includes tougher standards for videos and the recruitment of more experts to flag content in need of review. A YouTube spokesperson said: "While these tools aren't perfect, and aren't right for every setting, in many cases our systems have proven more accurate than humans at flagging videos that need to be removed. Our initial use of machine learning has more than doubled both the number of videos we've removed for violent extremism, as well as the rate at which we've taken this kind of content down. Over 75% of the videos we've removed for violent extremism over the past month were taken down before receiving a single human flag."
Who is training the AI and deciding what is illicit? Better by what measure?
the advertisers pulled their ads because of some alt-righters getting a few ads. Everybody pulled them and then they noticed there was no appreciable drop in business / sales / brand recognition from the lost advertisements. That means google's pretty well boned. It's also why P&G just announced they're dropping $100 mil in digital advertising. They know it doesn't work...
Sad thing is I'm gonna miss the ad supported internet. I'm pretty good about ignoring ads (and will cheerfully click on any ad that annoys me to give 'em a false positive) so it never bothered me.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Did the AI get programmed to only target politically incorrect content? Unfortunately double standards for YouTube, Twitter and other sites are all too common. Color me skeptical that this is anything other than an automated political censorship tool.
Google could just be saying this as an excuse for not hiring more reviewers in the future. "Ah but it seemed at the time like AI was doing a better job."
I was wondering something similar.
Does the AI also flag our (err... the US') domestic religious extremism?
BLM video spewing anti-cop or anti-white hatred? That will be flagged "okay."
Conservative video suggesting MAYBE Trump is right about immigration? Oh, that's HATE speech--permanent ban!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
To assert that AI is better than humans one would have to have humans perform the same task, but then one would also have to have humans looking at every available video. I am sure that humans would not look at every video, but that AI would. The only alternative would have to be based on statistical sampling. But a statistical sample would probably not encounter pertinent videos because they would probably be in a statistical minority.
I think Google wants AI to be better because it is cheaper. So Google says AI is better.
How does one know if AI is more accurate than humans? If the AI says the video is extremist, and the human says it's not, then who's right? Is there another machine out there that gets to be the arbiter?
The real answer is that there is some human who decided whether a video is extremist, then gave it to both the AI and another human, and the AI was able to learn how to agree better with the 1st human. Unfortunately, that doesn't actually tell us if the video is extremist or if the AI is any good, because the first human isn't more right than the second.
They're teaching the AI about the worst of humanity.
Great. Nothing bad will happen there.
Pewdiepie is alt-right? The advertisers pulled their ads because they were shamed into doing it by a smear campaign orchestrated against centrists by authoritarian, puritanical leftist bullies.
As long as it's not muslim of course. That would be 'racist' and 'islamophobic.'
I also wonder if it allows 'extremist' content in the same vein as Galileo's observations about the solar system. Somehow I think this will end up as a simple anti popularity filter.
Does anyone know what type of human was used in this experiment.
I'm pretty sure anyone here would be pretty darn good at identifying this type of content.
But someone that lived in a cave all their life..Not so..
You skinny jeans puke mofos delete / edit (aka SPEZ) everything you god damned dont agree with You ANTIFA thugs are the brownshirts - the useful idiots in the ideological subversion!
You snowflakes and your lame-stream-media create narratives and when we call you on it with proof you fucks scrub it all away.
Reddit is such groupthinking bullshit that drives people into caves where they can hear themselves in the echo chamber due to YOUR fucking censorship.
Let everything EVERYTHING stand. Truth will set you free. Editing reality and history is FUCKING WRONG. People can be wrong, racist, evil, vile, etc, but the TRUTH SETS YOU FREE
I remember when usenet and internet was free. IRC, usenet, slashdot, etc. The best way to expose was to let the record stand.
Both ANONYMOUS posting and NO-Delitionism will let the truth come out.
You SJW skinny jean fuckers think "your side" has your back? Read history! From Stalin to mao to pol pot you will suffer under your own VILE liar machinations!
Zuck, Pichai, The News Media Corp Inc, political parties, all of it, oligarchical collectivist fraud and liar machine. You are liars you are cheats you are thieves you are useful idiots and when the machine gets turned on you next you will see.
Wikileaks is saving the world at this point.
HUCK-SPIT on SJW on snowflakes on colleges and universities editing reality.
This is tsarkon reports and I approve this message. And fuck all parties. There are no parties, just a two faced janus called WashingTOON
Its sad that one of the last bastions of freedom on the internet is anonymous posting on slashdot. And unlike 4chan, at least we think the record stands here..
You cant win. The people who delete on wikipedia, "spez"-edit on reddit and delete thoughts are not the VOA or Samizdat types. They are vile wretches clamoring for rank in a failing system.
No algorithm, no neural net, and for that matter, no human can filter "extremism" in an objective manner, because they are informal descriptors of a vague collection of attributes, not a logically coherent concept.
"Extremist": Do you mean extremely correct, or extremely incorrect?
"Fundamentalist": Do you fundamentally correct, or fundamentally incorrect?
Presuming there's "truth", both of these terms merely distract us from it. And without that, no application of these terms (or many similar other ones) will be broadly satisfactory or objectively defensible.
I believe the training set is curated by a group headed by Coraline Ada, Christopher Poole, Deray McKesson, and Linda Sarsour.
An SJW can remove as much content as an SJW can remove until the SJW has zir head blown off.
Not really applicable, because Galileo's science had nothing to do with him "getting into trouble". He had direct permission from the Pope to publish the science, and it was hardly "shocking", since the model was well known since Copernicus.
And, incidentally, we now know neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is scientifically "correct", since Einstein it's well established that reference frames are arbitrary, and the only scientific difference is the complexity of the drawing needed to equally-correctly describe the orbits.
But regarding extremism, politics where indeed relevant, since Galileo going way beyond science to use his publication as a political attack on aspects of the Catholic Church, was indeed the sole source of his problems.
However, since he didn't actually advocate violence in his political polemic sprinkled with non-innovative science, we're again at "inapplicable to extremism".
Nor did he advocate violence for the rest of his life, which never varied from being continuously Christian as his worldview.
So, yeah, not really relevant. And certainly not relevant in the wishful, historically incorrect manner you were hoping for.
That's why it locked a bunch of channels related to philosophy.
Google is a joke. Everybody that works there is a liar, thief, or fraud.
No problem. Evolution will be around soon to deliver a final rebuttal to you, personally.
And, incidentally, we now know neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is scientifically "correct", since Einstein it's well established that reference frames are arbitrary, and the only scientific difference is the complexity of the drawing needed to equally-correctly describe the orbits.
That's not how relativity works. Yes, you get to pick any reference frame you like, but the Earth still revolves around the Sun.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Only in the sense that's the simplest human conceptualization.
Gravity acts on all the planets and the sun, collectively, resulting in particular paths. "Around the sun", when the sun is just another object also being acted upon by gravity from within and without the solar system, is simply a more convenient model. It is not "more true".
It is the methodologically best model to use per Occam's Razor, but contrary to further misapplication of that particular theist's concept, the Razor speaks to efficient conceptual methodology, not what is "more true".
Read this as Jaqen H’ghar for best effect.
Who is training the AI and deciding what is illicit?
White House chief of staff. I think we finally got a good one...
The ADL, of course. Can't have the goyim knowing. ;)
And you will have no way of "googling" it.
Just like the good old days.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
If all you have is no brain, everything looks like a slippery slope.
"Old man yells at systemd"
To see what other countries decide is extremist, and needs to be scrubbed. Tiananmen Square videos aren't looked on very kindly in China for example. Or women in bikini's in some other countries.
Does each country have it's own set of what is extremist, or do they all contribute to a global set of extremism, until al that is left is sponsored content from paying advertisers?
The government's hands are tied due to that pesky Bill of Rights.
They just outsource the dirty work to private industry whose hands are not tied.
FedEx and UPS can open your packages without consent or probable cause.
Geek Squad can examine your hard drive on behalf of the govt.
FBI (FaceBook Incorporated)
Google (G-man oogle)
The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.
I fear that the branch of government that is the weak link is the ignorant citizenry.
Any AI that can search for unacceptable values of extremism, however defined, in political discourse is one that would be qualified to run for office.
If Google wanted to identify "extremist content", it would just mark it as such, and allow the user to be either ignore it or not.
Not change algorithms to make information impossible to find, or removing posts with shadowbans or deletions.
There's no reason to ever delete content, unless it's for censorship. It's one thing to mark something in a category. That's not what they are doing, they are making it much more difficult for people to discuss different points of view.
I already quit using google.
Relativity applies to inertial frames of reference. Gravity exerts an acceleration, so a planet orbiting the sun is not traveling in an inertial frame.
Rofl
That's not the only kind of frame of reference though.
You could just as accurately describe the Earth as being in a near circular orbit of the center of the galaxy, with some minor perturbations caused by other objects in close proximity.
Earth is the center of the universe, and the earth is round and flat like a pizza.
4chan is training their AI. People on the /pol board have been running a mass false-flagging campaign lately, getting videos and channels they don't like taken down. When the victims appeal or complain they just get a robot "reviewing" the strike and ultimately have to resort to tweeting at YouTube staff to have any chance of getting things resolved.
YouTube's content filtering is out of control, anti-free speech, kafkaesque and devoid of any human oversight to catch errors.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The whole idea of protecting us from bad content stinks. Actually it's outright alarming. Firstly, do we need to be protect the pedophile terrorists that are served as prime safe example of the censorship Google/Facebook/Youtube and others are performing? Secondly it's a very bad idea to protect us from what designated enemies like Russia want us to know, with the policies to eliminate 'fake news'.
Thirdly it's a bad idea to protect us from our own progressive and leftwing activism. A socialist site checked the statistics recently , published here https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
This is not an AI issue. This is the surveillance state telling us what we ought and ought not to be reading. This article is relevant: https://consortiumnews.com/201...
Well, not proverbial, but you know what I mean. Or maybe you don't. Still, so long as you are here, even at -1, /. has not fallen.
Who is training the AI and deciding what is illicit? Better by what measure?
That's the first thing I thought. Who or what is judging whether humans or AI are better at judging - humans or AI ?
But even if you ignore that you still have the problem of a few bad actors breaking ranks. Every ad network has been caught serving up viruses at some point. But without the JavaScript to track the sales with nobody will buy the ads...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Who decides what is 'extremist'? Oh -you mean the TRUTH that the powers that be don't want you know about, or to even be allowed to talk about... Like who owns the media, the banks, who tells your 'democratic' government what to do (clue: it isn't the electorate), and so on...
"The denial of free speech is the first act of tyranny."
"We can tell that an ideology is evil when those who support it will not allow it to be questioned."
Islam. Left wing politics, gay rights, transgender, etc.... Not allowed to be questioned...
And it's delicious. Under the over baked crust there's an ocean of cheese, black olives and other niceties.
I haven't heard of this. Do you know which channels?
And, incidentally, we now know neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is scientifically "correct"
The earth orbits the fucking sun. Not the other way around. Einstein would happily correct you on that if he could.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You think we're being selected by nature, while living in this society? You're a fucking moron, bud.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
"... critics of Mao lose their jobs" (January 18, 2017)
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01...
"... For Blasphemous Facebook Comments In Pakistan" (June 13, 2017)
https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Social media is getting interesting around the world. The SJW are busy banning history.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
So that is why they shut down Jordan B. Peterson? :D :D
https://twitter.com/jordanbpet...
Stop using the "zionist" epithet, it's been tainted and makes you look like a fool.
Opposition to war needs to be mainstream and anti-antisemitic.
What the hell does a "zionist judge" mean?
I like to think that perhaps Israel is a puppet of the US, what if that were the great truth afterall?
Israel is the West's North Korea. We're ashamed of it and can't do anything about it, as they're paranoid and armed to the teeth. Well, we'd really need a big breakthrough like a peace treaty between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and then Israel can keep whining and we won't listen to them anymore.
Also you might cite more sources, like who was that senator exactly.
We should not block the postings of the lunatic or fringe elements as they are often right despite actions they take which are illegal. The Unibomber wrote a manifesto that pointed to the negatives of advanced societies. He did have a point despite being a madman capable of violence. We had a fellow in Florida who wrote a manifesto concerning the evil of having a baby in a world with an exploding population bomb. Nobody would listen to him and he went into a business and shot employees in his madness. But the swelling world population does need strict birth control if mankind is to survive. With these individuals the thing to do is make note of some of their better opinions and facts and look past the crazy stuff or actions that they also create. We can not simply assume that because a person is a radical and a bit insane that we should not take heed of their opinions and beliefs.
So, in other words, you know nothing about Islam, and want to keep everybody else as ignorant as you are... Well, at least until it's TOO LATE to stop the inevitable war and deaths of millions of people, that always seems to strangely follow muslims everywhere they go...
I live in Canada. There was M-103 in March and C-16 in June. And those are only two minor examples of the ongoing obliteration of free speech in the Western world. "Hate speech" laws are getting broader and broader everywhere in the West. Words like racism, sexism and gender are also getting new definitions in order to promote a political agenda. We are heading toward a dystopia a la 1984 and it's not a slippery slope fallacy.
Modded down for being pedantic, condescending, and completely missing the fucking point.
Are you talking about Galileo now?
Ezekiel 23:20
You're simply arguing semantics, making your point irrelevant.
i thought Galileo got into trouble because he didn't know when to shut up. Publishing his knowledge was allowed, just, but for the rest he had to keep a low profile so as not to threaten authority. He wasn't good at keeping low profile.
Also I thought Galileo introduced the idea of relativity of reference frame, Not Einstein. Then Newton included it and extended the laws of movement.
Then it got into trouble late 19th century and Einstein reworked it/saved it so it could take in account electromagnetism. Poincare also reworked it but Einstein was much bolder and cleaned up house.
After that Einstein made a generalization for general reference frames so acceleration was included as well. And then he squeezed gravity into the geometry of space so that he could ignore it as a force.
The bar for what gets removed from Youtube is high enough and predictable enough that notorious Internet trolls like weev can exist there and can post "white supremacist" videos that agree with the 40 - 50% of the West that doesn't want unlimited immigration from everywhere. That's a pretty special and beautiful thing on the Internet today. You could never post such stuff on Facebook.
I'm worried about this middle category, though:
"The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetised, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes."
This is vindictive, nasty, probably pointless.
It risks turning into a badge of honour for people seeking "true" extremist videos, or wanting to know that their extremism is found threatening by their "enemies," a factor Google's Jigsaw project found mattered in this subculture. Especially heavy-handed things like "interstitials" can have the opposite effect. Just look at the "goyim knowing" comments on this thread.
Do you want to reduce extremism, or do you not much care what happens to extremism but want to posture in front of your liberal friends as "tough on hate", oxymoronic nonsense?
What's more, like so many other leftist interventions, I think this could hurt their own goals. It's definitely not consistent with the free speech position, which is that you should leave the video up, but counter it with more speech. It's the worst of both worlds: leave the video up, but remove the ability to discuss it with comments, suggested videos, and votes. Some of the discussion will be validation, but some will not, and that's where free speech offers the potential solution.
In fact Google is tripping over their own dick here, because Jigsaw's project on successful extremist interventions uses the ad portion of the "suggested videos" bars to link curated deradicalizing videos.
For Project Jigsaw's data-based approach to work, the "suggested videos" sidebar needs to be there, and needs to contain a mix of curated deradicalizing videos and normal radicalizing offensive "truly" related content so that Youtube retains its credibility as a platform before presenting the curated intervention.
It sounds like Jigsaw did good work, then got steamrollered by "of course we can't allow" pointy-headed liberal neckties. What's up with that, Susan? The buck stops with you. Are you making data-based decisions here, or not?
And, incidentally, we now know neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism is scientifically "correct", since Einstein it's well established that reference frames are arbitrary, and the only scientific difference is the complexity of the drawing needed to equally-correctly describe the orbits.
In my reference frame the Earth revolves around the Sun. In my reference frame the solar system is heliocentric.
Relativity applies to inertial frames of reference.
This is special relativity
Gravity exerts an acceleration, so a planet orbiting the sun is not traveling in an inertial frame.
This is general relativity.
Most likely, the training set is made of videos marked as extremist by multiple reviewers.
"Better" means that the test set had a better precision and recall than when the humans processed it.
This is, of course, in theory. In practice, it is likely that the training / test sets were so similar that it will not scale in the real world.
Google nuked Dr. Jordan Peterson (not only his Youtube channel but also his GMail account). Restored after an uproar, but I think that tells us all we need to know about their new AI-in-training.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually it's an n-body problem and if we're only going to consider the earth and the sun for simplicity sake, they orbit about each other. The barycentric point is within the sun due to the disparity in mass but it's not the same as the center of mass of the sun.
You said something true again. You had better be careful, or you might devolve into a decent human being.
It most definitely is going to be a popularity filter. Each side (or large group of people who feel very strongly on one subject) will aggressively strike out to eliminate opposing viewpoints, training the AI as they do so. Once that's done, the only corrective factor will be actual violence, which will occur in its time.
The Earth orbits the center of mass of the solar system, which usually exists within the body of the Sun but not necessarily.
Relativity always applies, regardless of whether any given frame is inertial or not. The presence of a gravitational field means general, rather than special, relativity should be utilized when performing calculations based from, and this is the important bit, an arbitrary inertial frame of reference, but this is a mathematical requirement of our equations, not the case of when relativity applies. It is far more accurate to say both the Sun and the Earth orbit a point that is the gravitational centre of the solar system, which is located within the Sun but not at its precise center.
And here's where it gets interesting. According to General Relativity, then if it were not rotating about its own axis the Earth most certainly is in an inertial frame. That its path relative to another observer is curved rather than flat is due to the space in which through it travels is unaccountably is no longer Euclidean due to it being warped by other nearby masses. To look at it another way, we know through observation that light is also bent by gravity in precisely the same way, would you now suggest light is undergoing acceleration? Think carefully before you answer.
In short, relativity, both general and special, apply to both intertial and non-intertial frames. *General* relativity, however, is applied in the presence of a gravitational field as Special relativity is a special case - the one where spacetime is flat.
Why is this modded insightful? "The only difference is how complicated the lines get?l"? It is hard to be coherent in such a blase hand wavy refutation of all our physics sine Newton. So I won't try