Back

A YouTube chat about chess got flagged for hate speech

338 points9 hourswired.com
hirundo8 hours ago

We need a word or phrase for this phenomenon, where we attempt to substitute human pattern recognition with algorithms that just aren't up to the job. Facebook moderation, Tesla Full Self Driving, the War Games movie, arrests for mistaken facial identification. It's becoming an increasingly dystopic force in our lives and will likely get much worse before getting even worse. So it needs a label. Maybe there's a ten syllable German word that expresses it perfectly?

mellosouls7 hours ago

Not quite the same situation, but

"Malgorithms"

is used by Private Eye (British satirical/political magazine) to highlight adverts auto-generated inappropriately to accompany articles on news etc websites.

Example:

https://twitter.com/joshspero/status/562625460732174336

hutzlibu4 hours ago

Of all the suggestions, I like the "Malgorithms" the most. It is catchy, easy to read and probably understandable by normal people as well.

swiley3 hours ago

That's just it though. Part of the definition of "algorithm" is "correct" and these things are all just ML output that generate correlated noise.

waterhouse2 hours ago

Hmm? I don't think an algorithm has to give "correct" answers, it just has to be precisely defined. For example, one could say "For this problem, a greedy algorithm yields decent but suboptimal answers."

Merriam-Webster online says: "a procedure for solving a mathematical problem (as of finding the greatest common divisor) in a finite number of steps that frequently involves repetition of an operation" and "broadly : a step-by-step procedure for solving a problem or accomplishing some end".

formerly_proven54 minutes ago

Algorithms solve problems. Wrong answers are not solutions to (i.e. do not solve) a given problem. Hence, algorithm implies that it provides correct answers within the parameters of the problem.

qmmmur2 hours ago

If you coined this it's great!

joelbondurant4 hours ago

I love malgorithms having been exposed to the malicious grift of the healthcare industry.

cowl33 minutes ago

It's easy to blame this on imperfect technology but I'm not so sure. Couple of months back when all tech companies started their holier than though publicity campaigns with token actions we faced the same issue.

"Blacklist" was banned as term because it was deemed racist. No matter that people understand black and white outside the race issue. So if blacklist is deemed by people , not technology, as racist; thus removing context from the equation, why is AI wrong to assume that "attack the black soldier in C4" is hate speech?

crvdgc7 hours ago

Scunthorpe problem [1] is used to describe the false positives for auto filters, which are often results of naive substring matching. In a way, the current problem is similar, but on the semantic level.

However, it doesn't cover other cases for other AI mistakes you mentioned, like self-driving.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem

runarberg7 hours ago

The problem also goes in the other direction. That is platform rely too much on automation that human signal gets too faint. For example humans have a hard time flagging actual hate speech on these platforms as well. Another example: Every so often there is a front page post on HN where a company like Google will automatically shut down service for a customer (false positive). The customer has a hard time getting through and having this false positive corrected because their signal can’t reach through the layers of automation.

computerlab7 hours ago

The concept of "so-so automation" [1] seems relevant: innovation that allows a business or organization to eliminate human employees, but doesn't result in overall productivity gains or cost savings for society that could then be redistributed to the laid-off employees.

I think so-so automation often is used places where there's a lot of zero-sum conflict between workers and management, or where the work itself causes a lot of negative human externalities. (This can be a good thing: it's probably okay to settle for a "worse result" from an automated system if it eliminates a lot of physical or psychological harm to people...some content moderation issues probably fall under this case, but not this one.)

[1] https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/lure-so-so-tec...

Spooky237 hours ago

I’d call it “plausible automation”.

It enabled things like Facebook to displace message boards for the most part. Look at Facebook or Reddit, they are barely able to police obvious noxious behavior in English, and military juntas in Myanmar are able to organize on the platforms.

cmehdy7 hours ago

As a non-native English speaker I read "so-so automation" like "sus-automation" and found it oddly appropriate.

dan_mctree4 hours ago

I figured it would be appropriate to ask an AI to come up with a label. So I prompted GPT-J with:

AI has proven to be terrible at moderating human content, we felt we needed a word for these kinds of buggy systems and have chosen: "

And GPT-J answered:

"LOLPOP"

Which seems to capture the spirit of unreliable AIs pretty well

howaboutnope6 hours ago

> It's becoming an increasingly dystopic force in our lives and will likely get much worse before getting even worse. So it needs a label.

It's not just something that happens to us, it's something we do. We need to do better rather than accepting it as inevitable, and let future generations worry about what the best name for it was.

> Maybe there's a ten syllable German word that expresses it perfectly?

That being said, I propose Urteilsfähigkeitsauslagerungsnekrose: The necrosis that follows the outsourcing of our capability of judgement.

laurent925 hours ago

11 syllables, almost as requested ;)

May I suggest “yacht-feet automation”? It focuses on increasing the yacht feet of Zuckerberg, and doesn’t do anything else right?

burning_hamster55 minutes ago

Jachtverlängerungsautomatisierung ;-)

Also 11 sylabels.

mlang232 hours ago

I use the phrase "K ohne I" since years already. Which basically means "künstlich ohne Intelligenz". We all saw this coming. The topic has been gone over in scifi literature. And still, big tech decided its time to roll it out. "A human would also not be perfect, and we claim this algo is better then the avg. human" is the last thing you hear before discriminating tech is rolled out. And since politics is in the grip of commerce, regulations will not happen early enough. We are fucked. 2040 will be horrible.

Barrin927 hours ago

I don't have a word for the phenomenon, but the problem reminds me of a quote by Wilfrid Sellars.

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term"

call it maybe philosophy-lacking, or worldview-lacking, but understanding how things 'hang together' in broad terms is precisely what our 'intelligent' systems cannot do. Agents in the world have an integrated point of view, they're not assemblages of models, and there seems to be very little interest than to build anything but the latter.

Hackbraten4 hours ago

Verschlimmbesserautomatisierung.

Composite noun of verschlimmbessern [1] and Automatisierung (automation).

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verschlimmbessern#German

jcims7 hours ago

It's basically perception and reaction without cognition.

In the natural world we would call that instinct. So maybe 'artificial instinct' if we want to keep 'AI' or 'synthetic instinct' because I think it sounds better.

sennight7 hours ago

It is basically about using the wrong tool for the job, and continuing to do so even after you (and everyone else) is fully aware of just how wrong you are. Personifying the tool would just distract from the root cause.

"I was using a ballpeen hammer to pound in roofing nails, everything was going great until the hammer's 'synthetic instinct' resulted in a painful blow to my groin and a near fatal three story drop. It'll go better next time - I've painted the ballpeen hammer a different color."

mleonhard4 hours ago

If a human made the same mistake, we would call them incompetent, careless, and negligent.

- incompetent system

- incompetent robot

- incompesys

- incompebot

- inept system

- inept robot

- inepsys

- ineptobot

- inepobot

- bunglebot

- hambot

- sloppybot

- careless system

- careless robot

- carelessys

- carelessbot

- neglisys

- negligent robot

- neglibot

I like 'neglibot'. "YouTube neglibotted my video." "This is my new email address. My old one got neglibotted." "The app works for typing in data, but the camera feature is neglibotty." "They spent a lot of effort and turned their neglibot automod into carefulbot. In another year it may be meticubot.

drran3 hours ago

Slightly related new word: "copiloting" - copying by AI (copy + looting), e.g. GitHub copiloted opensource code.

soco2 hours ago

Then why not copylooting...

nxpnsv4 hours ago

Neglibot is nice. Dumbot works too...

drran3 hours ago

IMHO, it's a case when a bug in an Artificial Intelligence system produces the Artificial Idiot, so "AIdiot", or "AdIot"

nxpnsv1 hour ago

Perhaps Artificial Stupid System, you do the acronym yourself...

nirui7 hours ago

Industrial revolutions has happened few times in the past, and every time it occurs, we change our world to adopt it.

I can't help but wonder, what the world would look like if services in the future will be provided primarily by AIs. How do we adopt them? Do we have to invent a "New Speech" just to make AI understand us better so we can live a easier life?

"Question: Have you consumed your food today?", "Answer: I have consumed my food today."

Or a more subtle example:

"Hi! Welcome to ___. What do you want to eat today?", "I want to eat item one, fifty-six, eighty-seven and ninety-one", "Do you want to eat item one, fifty-six, eighty-seven and ninety-one?", "Yes", "Please make a seat. The food will come right away!" (all without making any Hmm or Err noise)

chii7 hours ago

> "Hi! Welcome to ___. What do you want to eat today?", "I want to eat item one, fifty-six, eighty-seven and ninety-one", "Do you want to eat item one, fifty-six, eighty-seven and ninety-one?", "Yes", "Please make a seat. The food will come right away!" (all without making any Hmm or Err noise)

this already happens today, with human servers. The menu items are numbered, and you tell them the number instead of the name of the dish.

Izkata2 hours ago

> Do we have to invent a "New Speech" just to make AI understand us better so we can live a easier life?

It's already happened. Have you ever seen an a grandparent unfamiliar with new tech talk to Alexa? There's a ton of them on Youtube.

ajmurmann4 hours ago

Blockchain Chicken Farm gives an interesting angle on this. Part of the book describes a AI controlled pig farm. For the outcome to be good, as many variables as possible have to be removed from the pigs' life. For example total isolation from the outside world. Otherwise there is too much for the AI to account for and the training set also needs to increase. What does that mean for our lifes as AI gets control over more aspects? What variables can be removed?

eloisius7 hours ago

A new vernacular to interface with tools that never reveal the actual state of a system under their control, and forbid you to directly influence it. You are granted the privilege to express your limited desires, from which the system will "learn" your preferences.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a man repeating "Hey Thermostat! Can you cool it down in here a little?" over and over–forever.

jcims7 hours ago

We're going to resurrect the transatlantic accent.

I already have started add a hard 'ng' on 'going to' because my phone keeps abbreviating it to 'gonna'.

darkwater4 hours ago

That would actually be cool also for non-native English speakers :)

guerrilla6 hours ago

Yeah that's probably not goinv to work for India and the rest of the anglosphere.

Karsteski23 minutes ago

Yea, I'm Trinidadian, and even though my accent has changed significantly from living in Canada for 7 years, people and especially voice recognition get confused by some of my speech patterns.

Example is that people always hear 50 when I say 30, because of how I pounce the "y". Anything ending in "th" or "ing" gets confused a lot by people who don't know me.

It's kinda funny to keep track of :)

iamtedd3 hours ago

> goinv to

Did you succumb to the exact same problem GP comment described?

kofko2 hours ago

How about calling it a "Buttle" after the movie Brazil from 1985 where a certain Mr. "Buttle" gets arrested and killed instead of a Mr. "Tuttle" due to a fly in a teleprinter.

b0rsuk1 hour ago

Nowhere near as popular as the skit with the vikings.

thinkingemote2 hours ago

How about "inhuman-ops" ?

I think this has the unnatural, unjust and just basic wrongness about using AI to be like humans.

"human-ops" is the justification to remove human pattern recognition because it's better for a small group of employees (e.g. "we cant let our expensive staff view flags of distressing pictures or boring chess videos, so we will get an algorithm instead". The tech companies HR say that this is pro mental health as an additional way to justify this change and any unemployment.

acituan8 hours ago

Artificial Intelligibility.

We are often reduced to mere conformity to what the artificial intelligence can make sense of.

Captcha: "Are you human?"

Human: <Goes on to do a simple perceptual task even a cat could do if they had fingers>

Lutzb6 hours ago

Superficial Intelligence.

human7 hours ago

We definitely need a term for this so when we are a victim of this, we can easily raise a flag. I have a few ideas: - Bot blunder - Artificial stupidity - Algofail - Machine madness - Neural slip

canadaduane7 hours ago

Artificial Stupidity stands out to me. Nice one!

hkopp4 hours ago

In my opinion this is not just about AI. This is more general. We as humans try to fix social issues with technical measures. All the racists are not going to suddenly become good people if we push them to separate platforms.

zpeti4 hours ago

Yes but at least you won’t be labeled as conspiracy spreading platforms by the /very important/ media, and your woke employees won’t walk out and disappear.

Oh and the current administration won’t pass legislation restricting your platforms or revoking article 230.

stiGGG8 hours ago

Roboterflegelhaftigkeiten

dylan6047 hours ago

My first thought was we should have the Germans create this new word.

twic29 minutes ago

Autobungling?

undersuit7 hours ago

Have you heard of the "expert beginner"? Maybe something like that.

https://daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-th...

alpaca1284 hours ago

Context-Free Judgement

biztos6 hours ago

10 might be inelegant, or not...

Rechenunmenschtauglichkeitsempfindung!

/ex-germanist :-)

SquibblesRedux7 hours ago

A receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) [1] describes the tradeoff between sensitivity and recall. No matter how sophisticated we think our classifiers are, the confluence of physics and mathematics will always limit the accuracy of our automated systems. It is just a matter of what kinds of errors we are willing to tolerate.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteris...

mirkules4 hours ago

It's funny that you should mention War Games, because the only way to win this battle is not to play at all. Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and burning all these engineering hours trying to moderate something that cannot be moderated? Languages -- and people -- are "transformable" enough to avoid triggering "hate speech" (whatever that actually is, and whoever it is that determines it) algorithms. Let people downvote or shut their computer off if they don't like it, and leave it at that. Are we that scared of words or ideas?

I used to live in a communist country (probably the same one that Mr. Radic lives/lived in), where "hate speech" -- which was called anti-state, or anti-establishment speech back then -- was punishable by a middle-of-the-night visit by dark-clad police. Yet, people still found ways to openly criticize the Party, and there were even popular songs that openly defied them, which only demonstrates that not even human pattern recognition is good enough to detect these things, as you state in your first sentence.

It's a waste of time, but more importantly it is detrimental to society.

Gibbon14 hours ago

> Why are we so hell-bent on restricting speech and burning all these engineering hours trying to moderate something that cannot be moderated?

Because if you allow humans to moderate then those humans start acquiring power. Which is something FAANG companies strive to prevent at all costs.

mirkules3 hours ago

So instead put power in the hands of giant companies because regular people can’t be bothered to not get hot-and-bothered by reading something they don’t like? What makes these companies so morally pure?

The only way this can make sense - especially on HN - is if the people who advocate for company control of regular peoples’ lives work at these companies.

visarga7 hours ago

There's an acronym: OOD - out of distribution - for these situations.

There's no reason YT can't detect chess from hate speech if they updated their training set. Maybe they weren't aware of this failure case, or they didn't get to fix it, or by trying to fix it they caused more false negatives. The way they assign cost to a false positive vs a false negative is also related.

noodles_nomore6 hours ago

"Cheap AI"/"cheap automation", to dispel the notion that throwing data at a neural network is high science or serious engineering. Or, even more directly, reduce it to "fuzzy matching". AI is just a fuzzy pattern database.

wolpoli4 hours ago

I would call it an "algorithmic oopsies" for the inevitable non-apology when the situation appears on the front page of a major news outlet.

formerly_proven2 hours ago

> Ooopsie woopsie! Our AI made a fucky wucky and locked your account for no reason lol. We pwomise nothing pls go away and die uwu PS: If you make a new account we gonna shadowban iwt immediately lmao, if you have any compwaints please write a letter and addwess it to the hospital you were born in.

Pinegulf4 hours ago

There is such term as 'human error'. Thus suggestions:

Machine error; Machine learning error; AI error; AI fail.

remolacha7 hours ago

Artificial Intelligence

johnsonyuen6 hours ago

False positive?

blablablerg5 hours ago

This is the term for it, but probably not sexy enough when I read all the other suggestions.

themodelplumber8 hours ago

Artifice Intelligence

visarga7 hours ago

Artificial stupidity.

inter_netuser6 hours ago

Artful Stupidity might go down better.

Kalium8 hours ago

There's The Scunthorpe Problem, which seems like a specific instance.

sergiotapia7 hours ago

Fauxtomation

8note4 hours ago

I think it's just called machine learning. They're all gonna run into awkward edge cases here and there.

Tbh, so do people. Somebody whos not familiar with chess or board games could think the same thing

smsm424 hours ago

Artificial Stupidity?

runarberg7 hours ago

In a government system a similar problem is called Bureaucracy. It is similar in the sense that the system is very complex, beyond any single persons comprehension, bureaucratic system is unforgiving in its conclusion, and it is the responsibility of the victim to deal with a false positive using the same (or similarly complex) system to attempt correction.

However this is different from bureaucracy in the level of automation and statistical inference. A bureaucratic system doesn’t do inference (or at least that is not its main function), and the steps between require human inputs (albeit really automated humans most of the time).

I suggest automatacracy which strings together automation and bureaucracy.

nicbou3 hours ago

Why not algocracy or robocracy?

dgb234 hours ago

Computer says No!

MontyCarloHall8 hours ago

Artifactual Intelligence?

inter_netuser8 hours ago

Actual Idiocy

verdverm7 hours ago

Anti intelligence?

mellosouls6 hours ago

Artificial Due Diligence

ifyoubuildit7 hours ago

A-I-opia. Think like myopia or hyperopia.

verdverm7 hours ago

AI ~ Attempted intelligence

Gibbon17 hours ago

In economics there is Goodhart's law.

'Any observed statistical regularity will tend to collapse once pressure is placed upon it for control purposes.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law

GoOnThenDoTell7 hours ago

Sloppy Intelligence

oldsecondhand4 hours ago

Artificial Stupidity

oncilogical4 hours ago

Crapware.

jMyles7 hours ago

Artificial Unintelligence? Artificial Stupidity?

TroisM7 hours ago

> We need a word or phrase for this phenomenon, where we attempt to substitute human pattern recognition with algorithms that just aren't up to the job. Facebook moderation, Tesla Full Self Driving, the War Games movie, arrests for mistaken facial identification. It's becoming an increasingly dystopic force in our lives and will likely get much worse before getting even worse. So it needs a label. Maybe there's a ten syllable German word that expresses it perfectly?

"Fuck the world" is all I can think of in this context

notyourday5 hours ago

No. What we need is something that is amazingly simple:

* you, a programmer who coded something that caused company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake", have to be on a hook for Y dollars.

* you, a manager who managed a project that caused a company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake" by your programmer, have to be on a hook for Y dollars.

* you, a product owner who accepted the what the manager of ta project that caused a company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake" by your programmer, have to be on a hook for Y dollars.

* you, the CEO of the company that had a product owner who accepted the what the manager of ta project that caused a company X to lose Y dollars because of a "mistake" by your programmer, have to be on a hook for Y dollars.

Yes, I understand that the cost of a mistake is now higher than the loss suffered by X. That's the incentive to ensure that it does not happen because the wives or husbands or partners of the people who would now have to pay are going to ensure that they do not do take that whose wacky ideas and implement them -- wacky ideas are abstract but the loss of nice housing, nice organic food, nice daycare for the kids and nice scholarship fun is real.

selcuka5 hours ago

Start punishing mistakes and you will soon have a hard time finding good people to employ. Only bad (and broke) ones will be available.

bigbillheck31 minutes ago

You forgot the board and the shareholders.

hutzlibu4 hours ago

Since you like to invoke a climate of fear, why not add the death sentence to that list?

But ... would you then like to work in that area, if you fear every step you make, can be your last?

Do you think there would be much innovation, if the punishment costs are so out of balance?

bjorn2k4 hours ago

I hope this is a joke.

eingaeKaiy8ujie3 hours ago

Fascism.

mleonhard3 hours ago

'starbot', from 'star chamber' [0].

"In modern times, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no "due process" rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings are sometimes called "star chambers" as a metaphor."

Example uses:

"I got starbotted."

"Instagram's automod is a starbot."

"YouTube is too starbotty for your lectures. Better post with your school account."

"We're suing them because their starbot took down our site right after our superbowl ad ran."

"Play Store starbotted release 14 so we cut a dupe release 15. How much will it cost to push the ad campaign back 2 weeks?"

"We use Gmail and Google Docs but not Google Cloud because of the starbots."

"I tried to put Google ads on it, but their starbot rejected the site because it doesn't have enough pages. It's a single-page JavaScript utility." (This is my true story about https://www.cloudping.info )

"Our site gets a lot of traffic but we don't use Google ads because of the starbot risk. Nobody needs that trouble."

"The STAHP Bill (Starbot Tempering by Adding Humans to Process) just passed the Senate! Big Tech is finally getting de-Kafka'ed. About f**ing time."

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

shp0ngle8 hours ago

Well. The speech police started changing "blacklist" and "whitelist" in programming context, even when those had no racist history; maybe it's time to change it in chess. (After all, white always goes first, that is not very PC.)

Rename "black" and "white" to "second player" and "first player".

SilverRed8 hours ago

First and second implies a hierarchy and uneven power balance. Both players should have their turns simultaneously.

1337shadow2 hours ago

They are uneven, having the first move is a documented advantage called "initiative". Your first move as black depends on the first move that white made, typically you won't have the same response for 1. d4 and 1. e4!

Anyway, I've been looking forward to this day, where SJW start trying to change chess because it's "racist" because white have advantage of initiative and "sexist" because it makes you sacrify the queen to save the king. Looking forward to see that level of stupidity being reached!!

fighterpilot8 hours ago

I thought of this and realized it'd actually be a fun game. Both players write down their next move and then move simultaneously once both are ready. To avoid race conditions, if a player moves a piece that is to be taken by the opponent's move, then that player has saved that piece with that move. That creates an interesting dynamic where you may not wish to take the most valuable piece if you predict the other player will move out of the way.

spxtr7 hours ago

I used to play a real-time version of this called Kung-Fu Chess. Each piece takes time to move to its destination, and when it arrives, a timer ticks down before that specific piece can be moved again. Very fun game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung-Fu_Chess https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVob7meb83w

d110af5ccf7 hours ago

How would two pieces moving to the same square be resolved? Both lost, or ... ? Regardless of the specifics, it would create a very complicated (but potentially interesting) dynamic when moving any valuable piece within a contested region.

RcouF1uZ4gsC6 hours ago

Maybe highest value price wins, with ties losing both pieces.

userbinator7 hours ago

"To avoid race conditions", indeed!

bigwavedave5 hours ago

> "To avoid race conditions", indeed!

Ha! True enough, "a good pun is its reword" ;).

throwaway17_176 hours ago

My son and I would play chess this way, with my wife actually moving the piece. We use a dice or piece ranking to determine ending turns on the same square depending on the actual game we’re playing.

harryh8 hours ago

Diplomacy works like this.

user39393826 hours ago

You can be #1 and I'll be #A.

SilverRed6 hours ago

That sounds like segregation. Putting different players in to different sets.

ikornaselur3 hours ago

Yeah, or the Mongooses, that's a good team name. "The Fighting Mongooses."

agnosticmantis8 hours ago

Be wise, randomize!

soheil7 hours ago

Why not try to be more inclusive and have each piece with its own color?

leshenka3 hours ago

"Actually this rook identifies as bishop"

throw9933 hours ago

You didn't capture my king it now identifies as a queen, please stop dead-naming my queen. Funny enough chess already have has a rule that allows for pawns to become queens, touche

phonebucket2 hours ago

Relatedly, the world champion played a game where the player with the black pieces went first to make a statement about racism [1].

[1]: https://www.chess.com/news/view/moveforequality-carlsen-giri...

isolli1 hour ago

Understandably, it was difficult to adapt to the change: "It is difficult to change your mindset in a chess game with a different start. But if we can change our minds in the game, we can surely help people change their minds in real life."

dogorman8 hours ago

I'm sure chess board manufacturers would love this. Think of how many new sets they could sell if everybody decided they had to replace their old black and white sets.

mc328 hours ago

Eh, many wooden sets are light and dark woods. Also many checkers boards are red and black.

It’s still ridiculous -like cultural revolution level ridiculous.

At least nature will never change and nights will be black and days will be light.

nextlevelwizard6 hours ago

Until “they” force you to have eye implants that correct for this natural racism

+1
goatlover4 hours ago
rawbot1 hour ago

But the pieces would still be white and black. We just need to recolor them to a color that hasn't been claimed as part of an identity... (looks at rainbow flag) well, shoot...

Infrared-coating player and Ultraviolet-coating player? Chrome player vs. Brass player? No kidding, I like this last idea.

zinekeller30 minutes ago

> Chrome player vs. Brass player?

Chrome Player: sponsored by Google.

Sorry, I can't stop from posting this joke!

booleandilemma7 hours ago

How about just light and dark? A lot of chessboards don't have strictly black and white colored pieces anyway.

(For the record I think the whole thing is stupid)

drran3 hours ago

"Light gray" is easy to misspell as "light gay", e.g. "light gay knight takes dark gay bishop". IMHO, it's better to use "wine" (w) and "blue" (b) as colors.

mPReDiToR1 hour ago

If you use English rather than American, you have "light grey" which is less ambiguous.

rawbot1 hour ago

It would still be light-skinned pieces vs. dark-skinned pieces.

nextlevelwizard6 hours ago

And attack and defense to moving forward and backward. And I guess we should abolish winning and losing while we are at it

Waterluvian8 hours ago

Change the colours too. Red and neon brown.

tomc19857 hours ago

"Night" and "Day"

ma2rten7 hours ago

Could we do some affirmative action and let black go first?

tsjq7 hours ago

and that is not sufficient. we need to give 33% more moves to black to compensate for the all troubles mounted on them in the past.

visarga7 hours ago

Yes, generations of black chess pieces have been discriminated in the past. We should make sure the black wins just as much as white, let's just use a coin flip to decide who wins ahead of the game.

hackerrrnews3 hours ago

Wow, this site is the fucking worst.

+1
heartbreak5 hours ago
systemvoltage7 hours ago

I think the words themselves are racist - black and white. I'd be down with getting rid of them from the dictionary all together.

Edit: Add brown as well to the list.

nextlevelwizard6 hours ago

What about yellow and red? Maybe add grey there too in case we run into “little grey men”

goatlover5 hours ago

Green as well in anticipation of Elon's Mars colony. We'll just call them dusters.

Andrew_nenakhov2 hours ago

No, no, no! Yellow and red are clearly offensive to Chinese and indigenous populations of the Americas!

FrozenSynapse2 hours ago

you're the problem, you have brain damage

MetaWhirledPeas8 hours ago

What a fine mess we've created.

- Popular experiences tend to be better experiences, so we all congregate to the same services

- Homogenous user behavior leads to monopolistic situations, increasing outrage when anything goes wrong

- Even if the government doesn't try to enforce moderation, the company attempts to self-moderate to maintain its image

- The popularity of the service makes human moderation impossible, creating a need for inevitably-flawed robots

I see no solution. The only way to win is not to play.

skohan3 hours ago

> The popularity of the service makes human moderation impossible, creating a need for inevitably-flawed robots

That's true, but we might be able to improve things with a bit more human moderation.

For instance facebook is insanely profitable. They could probably increase their staffing for moderation by a pretty decent multiple and still be very profitable.

So the current state of moderation is not strictly a matter of need, it's also a matter of greed in terms of Facebook wanting to automate away jobs they could pay people to do. And given the state of online discourse, it's a decision we're all paying for.

blfr2 hours ago

Then you have the problem of bias in human reviewers. I don't think you can solve the problem of censorship with just a few more hires.

thoughty8 hours ago

There was a star trek channel on youtube which got suspended because he called the fictional race Ferengi “greedy”, which they actually are. Got reinstated after a few days. But it’s getting ridiculous now.

exporectomy6 hours ago

I wonder how The Onion gets away with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4PC8Luqiws where they suggest visualizing your money related stress as a greedy hook-nosed race of creatures who want to grabble up all your money - and only hire their own kind.

smusamashah2 hours ago

Ferengi looks the same as فرنگی if 'g' sounds as in 'girl'.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%86%DA%AF%DB%8...

"A foreigner, especially a British or a white person." https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firangi

booleandilemma7 hours ago

My wife is a Ferengi.

fieryskiff117 hours ago

(((Ferengi)))

dorkwood4 hours ago

It's never been confirmed that the language of chess is the reason the channel was flagged. It's all speculation. A fishing channel being taken offline due to hate speech, for example, is a boring story. The same thing happening to a chess channel is much juicier due to the implication that an AI accidentally flagged the words "black" and "white" as racist. There are a lot of reasons to be outraged by that idea, but it's important to remember that it may not have happened.

schwartzworld20 minutes ago

And then it blows up here because HN has a lot of people who are disproportionately upset about default branches being called "main" instead of "master".

motohagiography7 hours ago

I'm actually starting to think we only see these stories about absurd censorship to make the more commonplace and pernicious stuff seem legitimate by comparison. "Oh, hahah, our totally legitimate censorship ML that uses language models to isolate people from each other based on predictions of patterns in their thinking made a funny goof! Gee whiz, you got us that time!"

Anyway, Google will be fine. Lots of tech companies have managed to re-brand after getting on board with idealists, just look at Hollerith.

tehnub6 hours ago

Agadmator, the person who made the video in question, also made a video soon after explaining the situation, and gave some hypotheses on why the video got taken down. In addition to the reason being hate speech, he suggested it may have been because they discussed Covid-19, lockdowns, etc, and YouTube was attempting to stop the spread of misinformation.

The video I’m talking about is here: https://youtu.be/KSjrYWPxsG8

eloisius50 minutes ago

That adds some color to the situation but it's still worrisome that we're becoming so averse to misinformation that platforms are censoring the discussion of misinformation. This isn't going to help the misinformed. For a real world example: I was chatting with a close personal acquaintance who was semi-sympathetic to the Proud Boys privately via FB Messenger. They wouldn't believe me that the Proud Boys had a rule not to masturbate, so I tried to share a link from the PB website. Messenger wouldn't send the message, but didn't outright say it was banned content either. I tried again using an archive.org archive link to the page, same error: "Send failed. Operation could not be completed."

It seems weird to outright ban the discussion of certain things on public platforms, but even more weird to ban it within private chats.

tdhz778 hours ago

A friend of mine was banned for sending a chat message that said “this is a Mexican standoff” — the people in the room were both Mexican, if it matters.. we were all confused on why he was permanently banned.

EdwardDiego5 hours ago

I got flagged by FB for inciting violence when my sister said "Your wife is awesome, I'm going to steal her" and I replied "Haha, I'll fight you au".

At least the human moderator who handled my challenge of it was able to consider context.

spuz3 hours ago

Banned from what?

nemo44x8 hours ago

Because it implies the Mexican race can’t resolve disputes without violence thus normalizing xenophobia.

hn_throwaway_996 hours ago

I think I'm more offended you referred to "the Mexican race". Mexican is not a race.

wccrawford41 minutes ago

Did you miss the part where everyone involved was Mexican?

daenz8 hours ago

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if someone makes the argument that this automated flagging is an indicator that chess's language is inadvertently racially charged. And think about the concept of "white goes first." All it takes is a few viral tweets, and suddenly the game of chess is in the crosshairs.

hyperhopper8 hours ago

In my opinion, that might be a sign that the idea of drawing abstract connections between words and concepts, that are several layers of indirection apart, may be going too far.

Yeah using language that upsets people is bad, but if you allow enough layers between words and concepts, _everything_ can be argued to be offensive for one reason or another. Or will be soon once something else becomes a hot button issue.

kleer0018 hours ago

> using language that upsets people is bad

Shouldn't be. Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only. Otherwise you get a Euphemism Treadmill, and that's a goddamn fucking waste of time.

BigJono14 minutes ago

I've never got why people don't understand this. Judging people by their intent resolves a lot of ambiguity, for both political sides.

If someone gets up infront of a room of 1000 people and says "hey guys!", clearly intending to reference the entire audience, they're not being fucking sexist.

And if you're standing there with 5 racists showing a pepe flag or an ok sign or whatever random garbage it is this week, then you're a fucking racist.

There's absolutely no need for nuance or ambiguity in either case.

You can argue the toss all you want about how to determine whether someone is intending to do something (it's not like you can read minds so that can obviously have a ton of complexity to it), but if you're starting from a position that people can unintentionally do something offensive then everything that follows is just pointless bullshit. You've just built a trump card for both sides into the argument so they can just scream past each other like morons without contributing anything meaningful.

SilverRed8 hours ago

This would save so much time wasting. When someone says "Can you push that to the master branch" there is nothing that ties that statement to slavery or racism so there is nothing wrong with it.

+2
zarzavat7 hours ago
+2
godelski6 hours ago
brianpan7 hours ago

> intent only

Communication is a multiple party activity. It's not just a speaker and a speaker's intent. The recipient and how it's received absolutely matter (and should). I've said plenty of things I didn't intend to be stupid. Still stupid.

Is it ok for the Washington football team to be the Redskins because no current fan or owner intends to be using a racist name?

It's not only the hearer getting upset that matters either. There's room for error and for grace and tact on both sides of a conversation. But it's definitely not just intent only. Humans don't work like that. Hell, even computers don't work like that.

catgary4 hours ago

Yeah, this “intent is the only thing that matters” mindset is a naive perspective on communication. People like to act as though there's some liberal bogeyman reaching for social currency by acting “woke”, when what has generally happened is someone was thoughtless/inconsiderate and an offended party spoke up (this whole experience was, of course, quite traumatizing for the thoughtless/inconsiderate person).

mc327 hours ago

It reminds me of all the synonyms and symbols, homophones and homographs Chinese use when referring to mr Xi on Weibo, etc., including the now censored Winnie the Pooh. To get around the censorship which blocks mentioning of me Xi in unflattering light. It’s ever evolving to keep ahead of the censors.

BuyMyBitcoins5 hours ago
judge20207 hours ago

Text is text, and you can't encode intent without assuming that the reader has a similar level of internet experience to be able to pull such hidden intent using context clues.

dmix6 hours ago

It's sad we have to go so far down rabbit holes before asking basic questions fundamental to the alleged 'solutions'.

kube-system7 hours ago

> Intent should be the grounds for upset, intent only.

People can be unintentionally upset. I'm sure we can all think of a time when we've accidentally upset someone. I still try not to do it.

We don't have to force people to change their language. It will happen over generations as we discuss these topics.

godelski6 hours ago

> intent only.

I disagree. Intent matters, a lot, and you're right, but it isn't the only thing. Right now I think we fall on the other side, that reception is all that matters (in the bias training I receive they specifically mention that it is 100% reception and not intent). I believe the law works on reception because that's easier to quantify. Intent is very tricky. You can do something that most people would consider wrong and just say "well I didn't mean it that way." (the inverse can happen too, but less people are likely to start a legal case out of spite compared to people defending themselves. It is tricky)

I believe that there is a middle ground somewhere. Where that is I'm not sure and I think we need to work together as a society to figure that out. I think somewhere in there there is a "reasonable" set of norms, and we have other laws to suggest that we can use this as a basis. But even this can be tricky as there are many different cultural norms and customs. It isn't even just ethnic customs. In America we have very different regional customs that often butt heads. I think we need to recognize that people are different and operate based on different values and often this is fine.

But I think a big thing we've lost in our current standing is good faith. There's three parts to any form of communication. 1) The idea that is within one's head that they are trying to convey to the other person. 2) The words, body language, inflection, etc that are used to codify this idea (aka: encoding). 3) The understanding of that language that was used to convey the idea (aka: decoding). Humans are pretty good encoders and decoders (we wouldn't have made it here where we are if we weren't) but there are limitations. Language is extremely messy and we often don't think it is because we're so used to it. But you can look at words being used today and you'll often find that people are talking past one another because they are using different definitions of the same word and actively refuse to interpret the other person's intended message (as an example, every internet conversation about capitalism/socialism/communism). The point of communication is to pass one idea from one head to another head. It requires understanding that there are these three components. If we do not act in good faith then we cannot communicate. With that knowledge it suggests there are two different actions to take if one wants to act in good faith. The communicator should try to encode their thoughts as best as they can, attempting to understand their audience (aka: speak to your audience). BUT we often forget that the listener's job is to decode, to do their best to determine the idea that the communicator is trying to convey (aka: __intent__). In fights we will say "but you said..." even knowing what was intended as a way to win. This is not in good faith but is so prevalent.

When conversations are about mic drops and one upping another person, communication cannot be had.

Rebelgecko6 hours ago

To you point about intent vs reception, I think the way the law works is actually more along the lines of "how a reasonable person might receive this". Which is perhaps harder to quantify, but IMO strikes a good balance. However I totally agree with your point about how some communication has become more about scoring points than having an empathetic and thoughtful dialogue

soheil7 hours ago

thinks the case of yelling fire in a movie theater jokingly

+2
Clubber7 hours ago
userbinator7 hours ago

I remember many years ago when colour schemes/UI themes were still called "skins", and forum discussions about them often yielded amusing racist-if-taken-out-of-context sentences like "do you like white or black skin" and "I have dark skin, but I prefer the white skin." Not a single person was offended or outraged, everyone saw the racial associations but clearly understood the context and was more amused than anything else.

I'm of mixed opinion whether people were actually more intelligent or level-headed back then, or whether the current "ultra-PC/SJW-ism" trend actually started as a joke that got taken too far and adopted as truth by the gullible.

tshaddox7 hours ago

I have no knowledge of the example situation you provided (I don’t recall any such jokes about software skins), but consider the possibility that in some cases where “back in the day we did it and no one was offended” it was in fact the case that people who were offended weren’t welcome or weren’t able to voice their opinions.

+1
judge20207 hours ago
visarga7 hours ago

> whether the current "ultra-PC/SJW-ism" trend actually started as a joke that got taken too far and adopted as truth by the gullible

It started with a few German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School in the interwar period.

kbelder6 hours ago

> Deep SJW lore

I think you're actually correct, although the roots go back further. People don't understand the historical academic context of modern intolerance.

cynicaltheories7 hours ago

If you would actually like to know the history of the current trend, read Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay

cryptoz7 hours ago

Jokes that evoke racist hatred are not good, though. You don't actually know that NOBODY - literally you said that not a single person - was offended.

Also, so what if someone was offended? Isn't that mostly irrelevant to this debate? The goal isn't to stop people from offending others, the goal of changing our speech is to reduce the unknown harm that words can do re: normalization of hatred of minorities. The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny and do in fact have a potential to cause real harm in the world.

I would posit that unchecked hatred towards minorities online for decades is one of the reasons we are in this 'mess' of language today.

+1
nate_meurer7 hours ago
pyr0hu4 hours ago

I'd like everyone to stop speaking and stop writing anytthing because it MIGHT offend someone. /s

ma2rten7 hours ago

You know that many people are advocating for replacing the terms whitelist and blacklist, right?

I don't see how chess is any different.

spatley7 hours ago

Chess is different in that the pieces are literally black and white in their color.

Blacklist and whitelist are used as linguistic symbols: black==bad white==good.

That is pretty different to me.

godelski6 hours ago

I'm no expert, but I thought the black and white thing originates really from night and day. It is easier to see when there is light (often perceived as white) than it is at night (often perceived as black). We used white and black to convey the color of the sky. A white color reflects light while a black color absorbs light. This is how I've always thought about it. I never associated this with skin color until someone told me. I still have never internalized this because it just doesn't make sense to me.

I'm open to being wrong but to be this connection of archetypal meanings and skin color is a stretch. I don't look at a white phone or black phone and think good or bad (in fact I have a black phone and prefer dark colors while my skin tone is the opposite). One which requires a lot of fundamental change in language and how we think. Because I'm sure I'm not the only one that has codified this representation in my mind. And most of us should understand archetypes are not how you go about judging the world or people. I don't see a person dressed in red and think "angry" (which would be a different emotion in a different culture), or yellow and "happy". I just see colors.

That is pretty different to me.

+1
Dylan168076 hours ago
textgel3 hours ago

You're right it isn't different, it was a stupid idea with firewalls and it's a stupid idea with chess sets.

piyh7 hours ago

I think if we let racists own the color wheel then we've lost.

uxp1007 hours ago

Because the pieces really are white and black, or light and dark. The list is not black.

+1
ma2rten7 hours ago
nextlevelwizard6 hours ago

But literally anything can upset anyone. You can never satisfy everyone at the same time.

flippinburgers7 hours ago

This was in my opinion already readily apparent the instant that whitelist/blacklist came under fire.

busymom06 hours ago

“Political correctness: is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.” ― Theodore Dalrymple

mc328 hours ago

Or cooler heads prevail like at the Académie Française who recognize that sexual genders are completely unrelated to grammatical genders despite what activists try to say.

So we may just get some people who push back and tell people that chess isn’t racist and it’s people who are injecting race where it doesn’t exist (such as here in chess) who are the problem.

MontyCarloHall7 hours ago

Have cooler heads prevailed in this regard? “Progressive” Americans degendering Spanish by referring to Latino people as “Latinx” seems to be going as strong as ever, despite the protests of actual native Spanish speakers. In their haste to appear progressive, people who say “Latinx” are ironically engaging in linguistic colonialism, as it were.

mc327 hours ago

But that’s the problem with progressives. They trip over themselves trying to be at the front. And yes, I’ve asked people of Latin descent if they use latinx in their speech to which they respond no and that it’s a North American invention and that in Spanish it’s Latino for sing male, Latinos for plural males or combo males and females, and Latina for singular female and latinas for all female but never latinx for any combination of the above.

tenpies4 hours ago

> Americans degendering Spanish by referring to Latino people as “Latinx”

Depends, do you speak Spanish? If so, there's a governing body - the Real Academia Española (RAE) - and they have referred to the "x" ending as an abomination. It is rejected from the style guide and not acceptable Spanish.

If you want to speak Woke Proto-Spanish, by all means do. Just realize it's not Spanish and it's spoken by a tiny fraction of a percent of - generally American woke-sters desperate to cling to Latin or Spanish culture as they realize they are actually American and as such - not oppressed minorities (the worst of fates!). This is why Oxford recognizes "Latinx" but the RAE does not.

mFixman41 minutes ago

> despite the protests of actual native Spanish speakers.

The only people I've ever seen mad about "Latinx" were American internet free speech advocates.

aftbit7 hours ago

It's none of my business but personally I prefer latine[1]. IMO there's no need for white English speakers to tell Spanish speakers their language. We're all on the journey to a world with more than two genders together. Spanish speakers will figure out their own path to inclusivity.

1: https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/10/15/20914347/latin-...

gorwell7 hours ago

Latino is already inclusive. There's nothing to be done, as Latinos aren't preoccupied with creating fake problems.

godelski6 hours ago

> referring to Latino people as “Latinx”

Isn't this connecting a Latin conjugation? Which in turn would be westernization? I understood westernizing people to not be the right thing to do. (Which to be fair, Spanish does originate from Europe but Latin people are not). I never understood this. If someone has a good explanation I'd love to hear.

judge20206 hours ago

Related: Referring to American Indians as 'Native Americans', which is often seen as over-inclusive by American Indians themselves since it implies you're talking about Natives to the entire North and South America. While not the worst thing, when you are specifically talking about the native tribes the United States pushed out and forcibly moved to reservations, the term 'Indian' is codified in law[0] and is what the group themselves embraced as their identity so that, as a whole, they could bargain with the United States government to obtain compensation for the tragedies endured.

https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ

0: https://www.bia.gov/

+1
l33t23284 hours ago
tshaddox7 hours ago

That’s a perfect example of something that literally every single time I’ve seen it mentioned was in the context of people expressing outrage at other people’s activism, and never in the context of an activist actually advocating for it.

Dylan168076 hours ago

Do you mean that it's an imagined problem or that it's an example of a truly terrible idea?

Because I see people using it all the time on TV. It's not an imagined problem.

dogorman5 hours ago

Read the literature from your nearest HR department and there is a good chance you'll see this term being used in earnest.

+1
kbelder6 hours ago
esrauch7 hours ago

Isn't Latinx supposed to be Latino+Latina? Surely those two words areactually gendered (in the biological sex way), unlike most words which are gendered in a purely linguistic way.

irtigor6 hours ago

Latinos is how you gender Latino+Latina in a "purely linguistic way", but some people don't like it, so they made a new word. The masculine word is either gender neutral or "truly" masculine depending on the context, but the feminine counter part always refer to girls/women.

hn_throwaway_996 hours ago

> Or cooler heads prevail like at the Académie Française who recognize that sexual genders are completely unrelated to grammatical genders despite what activists try to say.

But that's not really true. I always learned that, for example, ils (grammar-masculine they) should be used when referring to a group of people where any of the people are sexual-gender-masculine, but elles (grammar-feminine they) should be used when referring to a group of sexual-gender-feminine people. Ils and elles have the same rules when referring to a group of inanimate objects depending on the grammar-gender of the objects.

Adrig3 hours ago

You're both right. In grammatically gendered languages, various situations and context are present. Sometimes, people get worked up on a non-issue (like the latinx example other commented). Other rules have a more debatable impact, like the famous "in groups, the masculine prevail".

Interestingly, other approaches existed in the past like the rule of proximity where the gender of the closest element will dictate how the verb and adjectives will be written.

Languages are an ever-changing thing. I think it's healthy to propose and discuss grammatical changes if it makes sense, but everyone should be aware of what they are actually talking about.

SilverRed8 hours ago

I wouldn't be surprised if the Google moderator AI becomes the source of truth on what is offensive. If google doesn't delete it than clearly it is ok. If google does delete it then it is offensive regardless of anything else.

eloisius6 hours ago

Or it will at least become a cheap barometer used by journalists: Materials so offensive that they are automatically rejected by all major social networks.

dylan6047 hours ago

That's the scariest worst idea I've read all day.

chessmiater7 hours ago

Already done:

> In 2019, Magnus Carlsen and Anish Giri – who as of July were the number 1 and number 10 players in the world, respectively – promoted a #MoveforEquality campaign as a way of acknowledging social inequalities. In their game, black moved first and the line was, “We broke a rule in chess today, to change minds tomorrow.” It was billed as an anti-racist statement, but some took it as a suggestion to change the rules of chess to black having the first move.

https://theconversation.com/why-does-white-always-go-first-i...

Jach6 hours ago

Others have pointed out it's been done -- so it will continue to be done again and again until something gives. But I'd like to point out at least Go is safe for now, since black goes first! (However, white is used by the stronger player when not doing nigiri or playing a handicap game... And I'm sure some artificial drama could be manufactured based on which color you want to give draws to by giving or taking 0.5 from the perfect komi of 7. There's no safe space.)

fieryscribe8 hours ago

This happened last year. The Australian Broadcasting Corp (ABC) hosted a discussion about this[1]

[1] https://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/john-adams-slams-a...

CliffyA7 hours ago

Or what actually happened was the radio show asked if white going first was racially based, concluding that it was not. But conservative media spent days getting themselves outraged over it before it even aired.

https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/chess/12427690

abnry7 hours ago

You would be interested in this, starring Magnus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPFI3-W8Fqo

soheil7 hours ago

Yes, not too dissimilar to Github changing the branch "master". Is there a list of things like this that match this pattern that would be easy for people to go after given a few viral tweets? I feel like if there is such a list, it'd be less shocking when the inevitable happens.

dylan6047 hours ago

Real estate is moving away from Master bedroom/bath/suite

zeteo8 hours ago

Chess is not only racist but also sexist. How come the king is the most important piece on the board but the queen is completely expendable?! And, for goodness sake, the game features actual white knights.

pletsch7 hours ago

The Queen is a significantly better piece. The King needs to be protected and is borderline unusable until end game, where the Queen is the most powerful piece from start to finish. This is so evident that in higher levels of play, people just resign when they lose their Queen.

l33t23284 hours ago

In higher levels of play people rarely just “lose” their queen.

colordrops8 hours ago

Can't tell if sarcasm.

gorwell7 hours ago

Sometimes people can't tell with Titania McGrath, a masterclass in satire.

https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath

Animats7 hours ago

It's clearly racist that White plays first.

bonzini4 hours ago

White goes first because black was considered a lucky color. So if black went first it would have double advantage, from being first and from being the lucky color.

nicky04 hours ago

I think you just made that up.

pyr0hu3 hours ago

It'd be still racist if black startrd first. Its not an argument...

goatlover4 hours ago

So that would mean Go is racist for black always going first?

helsinkiandrew4 hours ago

Given there's 500 or so hours of video uploaded per minute (or some other huge amount), i'm not sure we can expect YouTube to moderate each potential violation. Each video constitutes a miniscule amount of revenue.

The only solution (I see) to this is for YouTube to charge for each upload - say $1 a video (there may need to be different prices in different parts of the world), this wouldn't detract the majority of uploaders and would pay for checking hate speech, copyright violations etc.

gundmc7 hours ago

This is from March and was discussed heavily on here at the time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26218476

soheil7 hours ago

It's even older than that it was first discussed in July last year https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23729156

temp89648 hours ago

I am surprised international chess organizations haven't denounced racism and announced the plan to change "white" and "black" to "A" and "B".

emadabdulrahim7 hours ago

"A" and "B" would imply that English is superior to other languages. It also implies hierarchy since "A" comes before "B".

Chess is sexist because the game ends when the King dies.

I say we should ban Chess. Cheers.

visarga6 hours ago

In order to enforce social justice you want a group of activists to impose restrictions and police other groups of people? How would they convince those people to give up their freedom?

dmix5 hours ago

> How would they convince those people to give up their freedom?

"Something something AI algorithms"

visarga5 hours ago

I bet that's why SJ is so focused on AI ethics. They want to abuse the amplifier effect of AI to win battles in the social wars.

underseacables8 hours ago

Oh no. Please. Not chess. Can’t we just leave this one alone?

nemo44x8 hours ago

No. Everything must be examined critically through the lenses of social justice. Chess is a Eurocentric and thus colonial game only valued because of its expression of whiteness. Dominance of an opponent of another color reenforces normative racism and the white pieces going first internalizes white supremacy to Black, brown, and indigenous peoples. I won’t even go into the obvious sexism and misogyny of the emotional labor of the womxn piece moving the longest distances in all directions while being valued less than the male piece.

We should expect and demand equity in all our so called “games” so that everyone wins.

colordrops8 hours ago

Ugh, I'm so screwed up. Your comment would be taken as dead serious in some circles and as parody in others. Based on the HN demographic I'm guessing the latter but I'm not sure.

nate_meurer6 hours ago

I hate to do this because the parent is good at letting their dry humor speak for itself.

But yes, it's parody.

+1
colordrops6 hours ago
dogorman5 hours ago

Obviously your comment is sarcastic, but this is worth correcting: Chess is a Eurocentric

Chess came from Persia, or maybe India, and spread both east and west along the silk road trade routes.

akho4 hours ago

That's a bit of a misconception. Modern chess is European. Shatranj was a much less dynamic and interesting game.

egman_ekki4 hours ago

Well, it seems it was culturally appropriated by Europeans.

0ld4 hours ago

if i am writing a youtube comment and care about it, i always recheck if the comment is still there after a couple of minutes and then a couple of days. because the comments are now "disappearing" more and more frequently the last time my comment got automatically deleted right away was a couple of weeks ago for "bottle opening" words (in my language) put together. replacing a few letters in these words with different same-looking characters helped for some time, but eventually even these got deleted a few days later. i should probably give up using this last google service i still use

_Mark4 hours ago

I had a video flagged, and marked as adult content because the title had "Hump Day" in it.

I am not sure in other parts of the world, but in Australia Hump day is the middle day of the week, A.K.A Wednesday.

obiwanpallav14 hours ago

This is very similar to the Myntra's logo incident[1] in India.

1. https://www.thequint.com/neon/gender/myntra-logo-change-offe...

Foomf4 hours ago

That's absolutely a saying in the United States as well. At least, I've heard it used regularly in both Washington State and Montana.

Asooka23 minutes ago

I guess this just shows how backwards and racist Chess terminology is. It may have been fine back in the day, but I want my children to grow up in a world where Blacks and Whites aren't at war. The sides should be switched to much more neutral names, e.g. based on light - lumen/umbral or something based on trees - teak/mahogany. Obviously we should also replace "attack", "check" and "mate" with non-hate-speech - maybe "push", "jeopardy" and just remove "mate", as you can say the same thing by "I believe you have run out of valid moves to make and thus I win".

Not like this is without precedent - I remember back when pieces were said to kill each other and then it was replaced by "capturing". Come to think of it "capturing" as an objective is also rather problematic, maybe we should call it "liberating", since you're really returning these peasants who were forced to serve their king back to their homes.

b0rsuk1 hour ago

Maybe they should train their networks on memes and make it do the opposite ;-).

clircle8 hours ago

Must be a slow news day. Youtube algo f-ups are just part of platform at this point.

alpaca1284 hours ago

And that makes it even more important to highlight them. We shouldn't consider censorship a normal everyday event just because some parties do it far too often.

Trias114 hours ago

I'd stay level higher.

It's our reliance on dominating platforms.

Their wrong choices of wrong technology negatively affects lots of people.

Government here suppose to interfere but lots of bribery is in place to prevent anything meaningful to happen

prvc5 hours ago

This is a perfect example of "be careful what you wish for". The Wired position seems to be "just put more resources into policing speech, which is a good and necessary activity". My hunch is that cases like these (false positives, at least, as currently judged by the current authorities) will proliferate just as the criteria for judging what constitutes unacceptable speech do. I would challenge the would-be censors to define specifically, in a way not requiring an additional consultation with them for more infusions of judgement, just what types of utterances that they want to suppress, and why. The closer one gets to this, the more the case for censorship will dissolve. Tl;dr: they are complaining about ambiguity in the implementation of the solution, while having failed to define the problem.

barbarbar5 hours ago

It is obvious that there are no such problems when ai is used for driving cars and flying drones. /s

api7 hours ago

This reminds me of a story from a previous era of automated content moderation...

When I was a student at the University of Cincinnati, I was a member of a group called LARC which stood for Laboratory for Recreational Computing. The main purpose of LARC was to get the University of Cincinnati to subsidize our yearly trip to DEFCON, but I digress.

The UC mail servers, or at least the ones where the LARC mailing list was hosted, had some kind of stupid search and replace censorship to replace naughty words with cleaner equivalents. The cleaner equivalents were in ALL CAPS of course.

So a few members of LARC were working on a project to build a classical arcade cocktail table game out of Linux and MAME and some other stuff. I don't remember the details. All I remember is that the mail server transformed this into the "MALE GENITALIAtail table".

This became its official name. I think the MALE GENITALIAtail table was eventually installed in the student union.

toast07 hours ago

> All I remember is that the mail server transformed this into the "MALE GENITALIAtail table".

I now realize I have a Pac-Man MALE GENITALIAtail table, thanks.

acheron6 hours ago

The clbuttic mistake.

kleer0016 hours ago

Let me off this euphemism treadmill! Please, I'm getting ill.

dukeofdoom6 hours ago

Well at least it wasn't for corrupting the youth.

stretchwithme6 hours ago

When does AI start being smarter than us? Can't wait.

TehCorwiz7 hours ago

Illusory Intelligence.

corona-research8 hours ago

This is no censorship. Youtube only protects us from false information!

LatteLazy3 hours ago

We demand censorship.

We refuse to pay for it.

We cry when it's done on the cheap.

And it's all their fault!

busymom06 hours ago

Artificial Unintelligence.

Haga5 hours ago

Buttlenagged = Archibald buttle + nagging by software

OhWellLol4 hours ago

Chess is systematically racist, so this is fine

imvetri6 hours ago

Where there is rejection for hate, there will be love for hate.

gsich8 hours ago

Not the first time. Bound to happen.

My main gripe is that Google has no money or brains to actually enlist humans to solve such problems.

smabie7 hours ago

I mean i think Google has both money and brains

gsich4 hours ago

Apparently not.

anthk8 hours ago

That's what happens when you mix clueless relativism with figurative language.

aaron6957 hours ago

It's probably suicide. Not hate speech.

And they weren't talking about chess. Skydiving and the abstract of jumping.

But let's love everyone's cliche from 2010, long ago solved if it ever existed AI is racist or too not racist.

Clewza3138 hours ago

> “White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall … ”

Fortunately there's an easy solution: we can just replace "white" and "black" with neutral alternatives like "allow" and "deny" or "pass" and "block".

basilgohar8 hours ago

Was this reply made by an AI? The context of the suggestions seem GPT-3 close...

axiom927 hours ago

This is what GPT-3 (davinci, the 175B parameter model) generates for real:

* Prompt: ">White’s attack on black is brutal. White is stomping all over black’s defenses. The black king is gonna fall..." Fortunately there's an easy solution:

* GPT-3 Response:

Just don't play chess!

This is the only solution. The reason for this is that the "chess is bad for you" argument is a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent". It goes like this: If A, then B B Therefore A In other words, if chess is bad for you, and you play chess, then you'll be bad for you. The fallacy can be seen by simply replacing "A" and "B" with two different statements, for example: The sky is blue Some birds fly Therefore, some birds are blue. See the difference? The argument against chess can be logically rephrased as "Chess is bad for you, and those who play chess will be bad for you. Therefore chess is bad for you."

kbelder5 hours ago

"Chess is bad for you, and those who play chess will be bad for you. Therefore chess is bad for you."

Can't find a flaw in that argument.

flippinburgers7 hours ago

They are referencing the whitelist/blacklist debacle.

Clewza3135 hours ago

Bleep bloop. No, I was just testing out Poe's law.

dogorman8 hours ago

Google's pursuit of profit is responsible these and innumerable more injustices. Those who would defend Google often claim that automated moderation is necessary at Google's scale, but does anybody really doubt that Google would still make more than enough money to stay in business if they hired more humans? Automated moderation is not necessary.

goatlover5 hours ago

Having the AIs flag things for humans to review prior to anything being banned seems more manageable.