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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. Bingo. Google just wants to keep costs down so they claim their "AI" is going a good job. Chances are all it is is a script that targets keywords.
I believe the training set is curated by a group headed by Coraline Ada, Christopher Poole, Deray McKesson, and Linda Sarsour.
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.
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".
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?
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.
Relativity applies to inertial frames of reference. Gravity exerts an acceleration, so a planet orbiting the sun is not traveling in an inertial frame.
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/
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.
As a man with a beard who talks about how shitty the Qur'an is (including on youtube), I look forward to our benelevant AI overlord knowing the difference between bearded men waving a Qur'an for peace and justice(in the Islamic way) and peace and justice(in the Kafir way), and making the choice of who is correct and who is to be silenced with little to no recourse.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"... 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...
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.
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
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.
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.
Define better.
You said something true again. You had better be careful, or you might devolve into a decent human being.