Slashdot Mirror
Google's Sentiment Analyzer Thinks Being Gay Is Bad (vice.com)
gooddogsgotoheaven shares a report from Motherboard: In July 2016, Google announced the public beta launch of a new machine learning application program interface (API), called the Cloud Natural Language API. It allows developers to incorporate Google's deep learning models into their own applications. As the company said in its announcement of the API, it lets you "easily reveal the structure and meaning of your text in a variety of languages." In addition to entity recognition (deciphering what's being talked about in a text) and syntax analysis (parsing the structure of that text), the API included a sentiment analyzer to allow programs to determine the degree to which sentences expressed a negative or positive sentiment, on a scale of -1 to 1. The problem is the API labels sentences about religious and ethnic minorities as negative -- indicating it's inherently biased. For example, it labels both being a Jew and being a homosexual as negative. A Google spokesperson issued the following statement in response to Motherboard's request for comment: "We dedicate a lot of efforts to making sure the NLP API avoids bias, but we don't always get it right. This is an example of one of those times, and we are sorry. We take this seriously and are working on improving our models. We will correct this specific case, and, more broadly, building more inclusive algorithms is crucial to bringing the benefits of machine learning to everyone."
This ought to be good.
Watch out for double negatives!
Are they going to fire their NLP framework? Or maybe drastic measures for behaviors that "are not ok" apply only to white males?
lucm, indeed.
If you've already decided that being homosexual (or a Jew, or a redhead, or a lefty, you name it) must not be deemed negative, why do you need analysis at all?
Anyway, here is a constructive suggestion: define more precisely what "negative" is. (Things like this are sorely needed IRL too, where people e.g. routinely use statistical norm as an argument in ethical discussions.)
...there was a period in time when it was bad.
There was also a period in time when you could be killed for it.
There was also a period in time when most of the Christian church would burn you to death for it.
It was, and in some places it still is. Humanity was and still is capable of doing really shitty things, and it will continue to do so.
In some cases you'll eradicate it, and in some other places you'll just force people down the PR hole into passive aggressive land.
The world is an ugly place like that. It's nowhere near as neat as we'd like to think it is, and if you look for ugliness you won't be looking far. Just don't act so surprised when you find it.
They keep 'rediscovering' this every few months. Why is this a story?
The reality of it is, the algorithm is functioning as expected. It is quantifying sentiments that actually exist in our society. GIGO
To watch this one play out. I'm especially looking forward to seeing it applied to their own "gender-fluid" internal office politics.
Actually, the internal "gender-sensitive" politics is a great way to tell who will not get anything done in the next 2 years. It's been hysterical to watch play out in the coffee houses near their businesses, and in their Facbook postings about "finding themselves" as they actually get fired for failure to do anything.
Brad: You tricked me, I wouldn't have...I' ve never never...never... Frank: Oh Yes yes, I know...but it isn't all bad, is it?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It's almost like objective, quantifiable reality and feel-good political correctness are fundamentally at odds with each other.
Sticking your penis in another mans anus is just wrong.
labels both being a Jew and being a homosexual as negative.
Don't tell Milo Yiannopolous
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
nt
Nobody at Google goes through a dictionary choosing the sentiment of words; it's the context of word usage out in the world that trains these models. So it's not Google's fault, it's our fault, if blame is to be laid.
but you can't fool everyone else.
Seeing as how I think the notion of a 'sentiment analyzer' is gay.
So many of us already use "gay" and "jew" as derogatory terms. Is it any wonder that Google's NLP picked up on that? What source do you think it learned from?
So, when your machine learning algorithm tells you what you don't want to hear, it is biaseD. Reprogrammin it not to tell anybody those things is unbiased.
Are the lefties even trying anymore?
Reading the ridiculous comment from the google spokesperson falling all over themselves to apologize and prattle on with all the talking points of every fake corporate "diversity" statement ever made is pretty hilarious. And pathetic.
The system came up with its conclusion on its own. It wasn't the desired conclusion by some people's standards. It's a machine that isn't real. Who cares what it "thinks"? Why apologize? Once they program enough biases of all the things it is NOT allowed to consider "bad" the whole point of this application is gone.
I bet it if it decided that white straight christian/atheist/agnostic males were the scourge of the earth then everybody would celebrate.
they are born that way, you dont choose what your sexuality is which is determined by your chromosomes and hormones,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Well 6 billion people would agree with that sentiment.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Even though we like to think that everyone is enlightened, etc as us, in very broad swaths of American society being gay or jewish (or Muslim or...) is very much perceived as a negative out of the starting gate. File under: Sad-But-true.
These require material to train them and the responses tend to reflect the participants nuanced behavior. I mean, what do people think is going to happen when you force feed it, eyes taped open, to 47 million social media feeds? Seems to be some kind of fine line between an algorithm and portal to hell. Well, at least they did better than Microsoft
(I don't normally talk like that but it's worth it for the joke.)
So yeah, analysis is going to read it as negative because people who use it in a non-neutral way overwhelmingly are the people who use it in a negative way. Linguistic prescriptivists hate that (except the ones who hate gays), but they need to get over it. In a few generations it will fall out of use. That or "gay" meaning "homosexual" will. Either way.
Gay is neither good or bad. Gay is just a label.
While true, one can easily see the reason for the problem.
Google API is trained to look for correlations in written text. If it sees a lot of negative text about something, then that's what it will believe.
I note that there's a lot of text that condemn jews for one reason or another, but there's not a lot that *praises* jews. We hear all the time about Christian charities, for example, but not a lot for the jewish ones(*).
There's also a lot of negative statements about gays, and although there's *some* text praising gayness, it's mostly either personal ("good on you for having the courage to believe in yourself") or neutral ("it's OK to be gay, it's normal"). I've never seen writing that *praises* gayness as a concept.
Compare with Christianity, where there is endless adulation of the Christian way of life. Democracy is probably the same way.
I'd be interested to see what the API thinks about Islam, or Trump, or Clinton, or a host of other controversial political subjects.
Google API is probably just giving us a reflection of the zeitgeist.
(*) Don't read anything into this, I'm only saying that Christians get better press.
It's right.
They might not like what they see. Even if they do, they won't like how others look.
for the sins of the heretic. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Ark, or the raft of preachers who just got done telling us how the hurricanes were caused by us turning our backs on God.
I've heard it said Islam is worse than Christianity because it encourages it's adherents to kill unbelievers. But honestly if you're a sensible Christian, given the history of God and how he reacts to sin on a large scale, you'd be well advised to do the same. If only for self preservation and defense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
.. are in general just disgusting self-belief conforming shit bags.
Which If true, puts me in a rather untenable position.
Maybe our form of life isn't so special after all.
Thats ok. Most americans thought a retard would make a great president.
It's just doing its job. Obviously on the data it was trained, "gay" and "jew" were used as derogatory terms. And they're apologizing for that instead of explaining it? Wouldn't you rather have a system that didn't have injected bias, like injecting an override such that "gay" and "jew" receive a sentiment boost despite that being contrary to its training? Total crap. Someone probably ran through every SJW term and happened to find two that didn't have the results they wished it had on usage amongst speech.
after posting my gay obviously positively biased remarks the negativity I received here indicates slashdot-ers feel the same way...
The problem Google has to conquer is the age old problem that all parents and other teachers face. They've got to figure out how to get the command "do what I say, not what I do (and often accidentally say)" across to the network. Any parent will tell you that a child's ability to learn what you don't want them to from what you've said or done is uncanny. Neural nets are very similar.
To train these systems takes millions of inputs. Even if every input is vetted to the best of our abilities, our abilities at recognizing bias in the training data, especially if it is spread thinly throughout, is near nonexistent.
This bias came from us. It is not something that Google intentionally taught. It is a reflection in a mirror.
Software that determines fact by sample predominance is not artificially intelligent, it is analytically sophisticated.
Fact determination without presupposition is the elusive goal of true artificially intelligent systems.
... the "intelligence" is that of a human.
Humans have biases. That's not a good thing, but it's human and it's intelligence.
Filtering out bias moves AI out of the intelligence business and into "artificial manipulation."
I'm OK with that and I don't have a problem with the "artificial" label, but don't call a filtered machine intelligent.
This is a validation for those of us who preach that "artificial intelligence" will not be a thing until a computer gets random and throws a fit, like committing suicide if Facebook is down.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
That's so gay.
Its correct. Don't skew something that works.
I ran a Google Scholar search that turned up a paper "Jerk Influence Coefficients, Through Screw Theory, of Closed Chains." The title is not a vulgar joke as each of the phrases is a term-of-art on the topic of rigid-body (yes, another domain-specific term) mechanics.
Let's just say Google served me a large number of adds on the assumption that I belong to what is only a narrow subculture of a broader and more diverse community.
Did they really think this wouldn't happen?
Teaching an AI to learn from humans is going to instill both the good and the bad qualities.
I do agree that calling something gay or jewish has become a synonymous way expressing one's distaste of something. Just check out S13E12 of South Park. South Park might even be a contributing factor to this method of expression.
I think the AI correctly assigned the proper meaning to the terms. I don't think the users of these terms are necessarily homophobic or antisemitic either. The South Park episode mentioned above looks at this as well.
If they really want the AI to be PC, they will be required to do some quality control of the examples they feed it. But OTOH, if it is a PC AI, it will not be able to properly extract the meaning from the words of somebody who isn't PC.
A scene from Airplane comes to mind. We need an AI that speaks jive.
It's just what everybody thinks, spoken by a bot. There's no news in here.
It's not a judgement by the AI against the people, it's a judgement about how others react and behave towards those them. Stop apologizing for your AI being able to perceive human behavior. "I'm so sorry my AI figured out you have a flat tire".
I identify as a baby killer and I'll be offended if google sentiment analyser identifies this term as used with negative sentiment by other people.
"the API labels sentences about religious and ethnic minorities as negative -- indicating it's inherently biased" Does this writer not understand the meaning of the word "inherently"? It would be inherently biased if the bias were built into the algorithm. From the description, it instead sounds like some statistical fluke in the data -- or possibly a reproducible statistical association -- misled the algorithm.
As in subject.
I suspect that the algorithm itself isn't homophobic or antisemitic. What's more likely is that the data being fed into it is homophobic and antisemitic. An analysis is only as good as the data set it's based on. Just search around /. and you'll find plenty of examples of intolerant speech and portrayals of some groups of people in a very negative light with little or no balance or pushback the other way. I doubt that Facebook and Twitter are any different. If anything, that Google's algorithms detected biases in content of the WWW is an indictment of many of the kinds of things we use the internet to do. I'd like to see analyses broken down into countries, regions, subcultures, etc. to see where the strongest biases are. We might be surprised by it.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
TL;DR The input provided to a machine can be skewed and reflect bias - sure - but what do you expect with human intelligence controlling the input? Human intelligence is very capable of creating the most wonderful lies in order fullfil its most deluded fantasies.
---
Coming from another perspective - if I had never heard about the holocaust, and barely 'understood' what a human was, or that it had rights, I'd thank my alien god I was not a human jew. Also, Unless my kind also had homosexuals - and we didn't consider it wrong at one point in our recent history - I'd probably think that being afraid to be yourself in front of you friends and family (as many are) is something very bad, and I'd thank my alien god, once again, that I was not a human homosexual.
In short - we all need to leave the god damn pity party.
I'm sure any bias present is present only because bias is present throughout human history. It's one of the only reasons any animal survived as long as it has. Machines are not animals.
If it just allows for text analysis and the text, as a total body of statements, uses "Jew" or "gay" as insults, wouldn't high fidelity API reflect that? It seems more like a statement about the text being analyzed rather than about the processing. If the analysis didn't have high fidelity to the text, wouldn't it then be biased? Imagine the analysis which corrects for biases against historically-oppressed minorities. Now imagine this black box is fed Mein Kampf and other Nazi works. Should it correct for the biases? That would mean not detecting antisemitic biases in the Nazi propaganda. Wouldn't that make it a bad analysis?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Jewish homosexuals.
Being a minority is a negative even when majority is very understanding. Like being gay in an majority-straight society, being a Jew in majority-Christian country, being a non-liberal in Sillicon Valley and so on. What AI may be missing is a human value of being yourself rather than being popular.
Your brain is wired in a way which interferes with reproduction - not good! Reproduction is one of the key characteristics of life. If you're a gay male engaging in anal sex then that's an additional health risk - is that good? Gay youth suicide rates are 300% higher than that of normal people - that can't be good.
Good traits - intelligence, athleticism, attractiveness - don't require social engineering to be acceptable. Let's stop pretending that homosexuality isn't a huge burden to the afflicted, we aren't doing those faggots any favors.
You most certainly aren't doing anyone any good. You know why the suicide rates are higher for LGBT folk? Go look in the mirror.
I always knew it.
Of course, if you willfully ignore reality and make up your own delusion... ... then it "isn't".
like a Muslim, or Jew, or Christian, or any other religious aka schizophrenic person would do
Otherwise, coming to that conclusion isn't hard:
When one's actions are not based on a model that is based on outside reality,
then they are inferior to those based on a model that is.
Inferior, means opportunities not taken, and doing damage not avoided.
Additionally, the brain wants reality and the own model to be the same. Because that is required, to predict the future from the current state, so one can actually work towards a goal. But for extroverted (like Abrahamic) religious schizophrenia, who can't give up the inner model, because it is the only thing that keeps them going and able to accept the world, that means: Force reality to conform to the inner delusion.
And I don’t have to explain why that is harmful aka bad, do I?
Now don't get me wrong: That doesn't mean that people who are ill with it, are worse people, than somebody who has broken legs is a worse person. It's just an illness. The illness is what’s harmful. They wouldn't be harmful without it.
And the problem is, that as long as we don't see it as harmful, religious and sane people think they have to despise each other.
Can we just note that it is bad, but the people who have it aren't?
So that we can get into a mindset, where we can talk about how to fix it?
Sweet, sweet boy pussy in need of reaming detected.
Instantiating mercy fuck protocol.
Well, to be fair, if you are gay, looking to get married and be happy, Google is evil.
FTFY
Male big horn sheep live away from females and have sex with each other. When females want sex they go to the males and act Male by mounting them. Only then will the males mount them back. Males who donâ(TM)t like to be mounted go to stay with the females, and donâ(TM)t mount at all.
Homosexuality is not a barrier to reproduction per se, but does seem to make the drag scene much, much cooler.
For linguistics studies, having access to unedited word scores in the various source languages could grant an interesting glimpse into cultural bias. Maybe queries such as swedish:homosexual, portuguese:homosexual and USenglish:homosexual would score differently, and results that were closer to 0 than to -1 than other query results for the same word in other languages could be indicative of less bias against that word.
Sorry, too implausible, just don't believe it. NEXT!
Tell us, what are it's guilty pleasures and perversions? What gets it off? Inquiring minds want to know.
It is not an "artificial intelligence", it is a tool built to analyse text, trained on a mass of text written by biased humans. Now if it had something resembling a conscience or critical thinking it might have a chance at identifying and balancing prejudice to defend it's "sentiment" weighting, but right now it's a "dumb" (in the AI sense) tool... So if it's biased against "Jews" and "gays", all it tells us is on average the humans who wrote the training data are biased against "gays" and "Jews".
If they modify their AI code with politics it'll be useless at solving real world problems
... they should admit the whole concept is flawed. AI - or rather what google is passing as AI - does not have the context, education and human experience to perform many of tasks they want. It's fine if it is research, but to create products on something like this is madness.
Unfortunately, google has become a synonym for not-engineering, for producing 'solutions' that only work in a narrow scope of inputs, catastrophically failing elsewhere, while not really having customer services for those 'rare' cases when their algorighms show their inherent stupidity.
Not to mention privacy - they have invented a browser that wants you to sign in?!??!! Their phones stalk you by default - recording all your activity and location. It's the most spread malware on the planet...
And now,google self-driving cars. yeah, right
it is bad. Get over it twinks.
Being told by a corporation what is good or bad is what's really bad. Humans will never agree about the "goodness" or "badness" of anything. Having AI do it doesn't make it any better.
If you go to their public facing API, all references to gay, jew, muslim, christian, etc. give a sentiment score of 0. That have manually overridden the algorithm to be PC.
Where "the AI" harbors beliefs that are unacceptable to PC-obsessed libtards.
...spoiled athletes losing jobs and endorsements for disrespecting our country, amirite?
are they really saying that the api is wrong? how it can be wrong if it thinks or calculate these things logically? so because of sick time what we living, they go and change these answers just because time what we living? couople of years back, this isnt be anything more than good laughs.
www.granstrom.fi
Poor writing about science-related things makes for a poor message. The article gives the suggestion that Google's at fault for the negative perception of its sentiment analyzer, which tells me the reporter, and most laypeople, have no idea how these forms of AI work. That, in itself, isn't necessarily a problem, but it shows that the tone of an article can manipulate the reader in inappropriate ways.
These kinds of classification routines are based on the training of a given dataset. As such, how the information in that dataset is structures will influence the resulting trained model. Google didn't set out to craft a bigoted sentiment analyzer; the analyzer simply reached that conclusion based on the, likely very large, dataset Google used to train the API. Looking at how people use language on the Internet, I'm not surprised at all by the outcome. A similar outcome can be seen in the chatbot created by Microsoft that ended up a dumpster fire within 24 hours. Granted, the training methods may be different between the two, the nature of the underlying dataset, language use (primarily on the Internet) are very similar.
What Google did was create a sentiment analyzer based on how the average person uses language. If that means certain negative sentiment is elicited from terms like "Jew" or "homosexual", that speaks far more about the underlying dataset and less about the sentiment analyzer.
Wait. Being gay is objectively bad. It is different from the norm. It is challenged in the bible and quran.
Sentiment mirrors cultural and physiological reality.
8% of the population is biologically gay. 4% self describe as gay. So 4% are living a heterosexual lifestyle despite biology. I do not have stats on how many heterosexuals live a homosexual lifestyle.
For Entertainment Purposes Only... Ahh... the bane of the 21st century, where Internet connectivity permits corporate and entrepreneurial developers to forget that
They are 'building' things that can only exist while the electricity is on, stock market is up, the project is in that cherished 'Google Beta' phase where infinite wonders are available as an API (for free!) and monetization is a distant worry. Some day predatory monetization (or project abandonment and shutdown) will appear and we will pretend it is a 'new crisis', something no one could have possibly foreseen. And unlike the shrink-wrapped self-contained software of yesterday, when the music stops you will NOT be left with a product that is functional to any extent, no installed customer bases to maintain... you can just flee.
No, cloud API snake oil is not a firm foundation to build a civilization upon. With it you can only build disasters waiting to happen. How we laughed as the centralized service bureaus of yesterday (ahem, IBM) tried to convince us that computing power on the desktop was irrelevant, that application software should be in the hands of trained professionals who maintain and evolve it in an undisclosed central location... how we rebelled to the necessity to batch traditional processes like payroll (that had been meticulously maintained in paper ledgers), crank up the modem to perform cycles 'of data entry' and 'centralized processing' and finally 'report generation'.
But now the centralized Service Bureau is baaaack! And it's propped up by illusions of solvency and foundation. If you don't need to log in every time it's not a Service Bureau. If you don't need to pay (today) it's free. If the wire was already there (Internet) it needs no wires. If the provider's logo need not appear on the screen it's entirely ours. If they're still in Beta they can handle an infinite amount of transactions. No worries! Even after monetization it's a manageable business expense, no worries!
I can imagine Dilbert's Boss poking his head in and asking, "Where is this Google API we are paying dearly for. I want to see it." When shown a slick web app he blusters, "That is just what it looks like to the customer. Do you think I'm stupid? I want to see the thing itself." And the next few frames has Wally and other employees tapping at their workstations a moment and replying, "Not here. Must be in [other department] today, try there." Everyone is passing the ball to the next, until the Boss shows up at Dilbert's desk. Dilbert, sizing up the situation and knowing that he cannot show the Boss the actual thing he has purchased, points to a paperweight on the desk. "It's there." He says. The Boss picks it up and examines it. "It's beautiful. But it's not connected to anything." "Of course." Dilbert says not missing a beat. "It's wireless."
These neural net apps fail on privacy too, which is a big who'da thunk it. Voice assistants transmitting room conversation, smart TV's bugging your house, APIs to evaluate comment text (the current topic) transmitted en masse to central Service Bureaus for 'proprietary analysis'. Whether you balk on privacy alone or the ludicrously unsustainable idea that if it catches on you'll be pipelining zigabytes of content their way on a regular basis... what's missing is the developer who says, "You know, sooner or later in some way or another this will become a bad idea."
And finally we have a Service Bureau neural-net-for-rent that claims to some day understand humans. Even when if is trained to detect sarcasm (the greatest literary spice) it will be the simplest kind of gainsaying sarcasm and humans will delight in deceiving it. Of course you'll draw lines (with set parameters) for gatekeeping, and humans will delight in misspelling words or using MEME-speak or embedding things in images to say what they intended to say, anyway. And in place of an all-human discussion with the occasional troll or bully, there will be this massive
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
boya
Most people that do not themselves exhibit the trait that's being argued-against by the noisy minority don't usually express opinions on it, so they're a hole in the data that needs to be accounted for. Unfortunately it's a lot easier to interpret based on what has been said than what has not been said.
This uses exactly the "silent majority" argument normally used to propagate conservative "Christian" views. Ironic that being used here to deny that the US just might be homophobic and antisemitic.
It's a mental illness. Always has been, always will be, regardless to the political correctness garbage.
really, Slashdot? One instance of [the N word] and I hit the lameness filter?
It has more to do with past trends of $#!+posting by the fan club for a 1992 Danish blaxplotation film.
It's almost like objective, quantifiable reality and feel-good political correctness are fundamentally at odds with each other.
No, it's much more like objective, quantifiable reality is at odds with the US not being homophobic and antisemitic. (OK, I'll give you that it's consistant with Google wanting to see the US as feel-good PC).
Please bow before our new superior morality overlords - they are just calling it as they see it.
One goal of AI is to mimic human thought and behavior in a machine. The problem is, machines tend to be consistent and logical. Therefore. it is not logical to expect them to conform to rules of political correctness that are fundamentally illogical and change intermittently in both content and application.
Archie Bunker to Sammy Davis Junior:
"You being colored, well, I know you had no choice in that. But whatever made you turn Jew?"
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"Gay" — as the opposite of "sad" — is good.
"Homosexual" is bad. No doubt about it. For all the denials and "pride" parades, it is not a good thing to be. Something to cope with, to learn to accept, to enjoy life despite of.
Well said
And many conservatives would be fine with the Sharia of Moses being the law in the US.
I'd like to see how they'd attempt to answer the following questions to their constituents:
Does God require a low-fat diet? (Lev 3:17)
Does eating blood sausage merit exile? (Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10)
Is it wrong to wear mixed-fiber clothing? (Lev 19:19)
Is it wrong for a man to trim his beard? (Lev 19:27)
Jesus has a tattoo (Rev 19:16) in violation of God's law. (Lev 19:28) On what grounds does he get an exception?
Is sex with a woman on her period an abomination? (Lev 20:18)
Does working on Sunday merit the death penalty? (Num 15:32)
If a virgin woman's hymen doesn't bleed her first time she has sex, should she be punished? (Deut 22:20)
If a man rapes a woman who's engaged, and it happens in a city, should she be punished too? (Lev 19:20; Deut 22:24)
My parents were not married. Am I excluded from participation in public discourse? (Deut 23:2)
And even the atheists would agree that some of the commandments are good laws.
Agreed.
Except for that bit about the Sabbath, the Ten Commandments strongly resemble the Seven Laws of Noah given in the Talmud. As Noah Lamechsson is the Y-chromosomal most recent common ancestor in the mythology of Judaism and Christianity, the laws of Noah are seen as binding on all humankind, even though the 613 commandments of Moses are binding only on the Jewish people. I guess similarity to the laws of Noah might be good reason to separate the Ten from the other 603.
Hmmm... "Jewish"... I seem to remember a past controversy where "Jewish" and "Jews" were rated as more positive than "Jew", causing Google to have to place an ad at the top of certain search results disclaiming responsibility for the views of third parties.
The real problem is that people are upset that objective analysis of facts results in conclusions that conflict with the conclusions they derive through feeling.
Who was it again that pointed their AI at Urban Dictionary, resulting in their AI being so potty-mouthed, racist, sexist, everything-ist, that they had to pull the plug?
I'm a jew by birth, atheist by choice. And I can attest that yes it is a negative feeling to be a jew. So it's not wrong.
Disclaimer: I don't care if your're gay.
So basically bad meant what 'gay' does now more or less.
And Gay once meant happy.
...
Of all the times I have used the word 'gay', almost always I meant 'some degree of bad', I rarely meant 'homosexual' and almost never meant 'happy'. When did the sexual connotation of the word begin and why is that the overriding meaning now. Many words have multiple meanings, the context is key.
"better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things" - Linus Torvalds 09-08-07
Overall in society I think that it is a pretty fair assumption that being gay is generally looked upon in a negative way. Sure some people swing that way and a few others don't have a negative attitude towards them, but the vast majority don't want to hear about them, best if kept in the closet then to force your values on others.
For that reason alone it should be discouraged.
Corporatism != Free Market
I'm confused. Isn't the fact that the AI determined this based on human user input simply a reflection of the sad state of our society, and not the AI itself? Surely no one programmed the AI to automatically regard minority attributes as negative. Unless I'm misinterpreting this, Google shouldn't be apologizing. The human race should. The great thing about an AI is that you can easily determine what it really "thinks," unlike human beings which conveniently hide it behind a friendly façade (well, at least they used to before Trumpism took over).
bigots gonna bigot
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
in the whole city? There was nobody who was redeemable? Do we believe that being a skin flit deserves death? Of course we don't.
Also, that's not how most preachers sell it. What's written in the bible isn't nearly as important as what people _think_ is written in the bible.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Biological Exuburance by Bruce Bagemihl, Page 407, second paragraph. Look under bighorned sheep.
Itâ(TM)s well documented. Nature doesnâ(TM)t care about your concepts of plausibility,
I was gonna tell a gay joke, butt fuck it.
Garbage Out
This is the problem with firing people once they reach the ripe old age of 30 -- you think you've found something earth-shatteringly unique when, in reality, you've just discovered a concept that generations of people before you have.
Time to stop.
Here's at least part of the danger - their electric parrot goes on the internet, listens to all the people with nothing better to do than squawk on the 'net, then amplifies them. And, because it's electric, it gets seen as somehow righter and more infallible than people. And an amplifying vicious cycle is created.