4 ms·

I don't think the particular issue is with deciding what hate is. Your example said that the AI would understand all of those as hate, and I think it would be c

I don't think the particular issue is with deciding what hate is. Your example said that the AI would understand all of those as hate, and I think it would be correct. The issue is that humans have this idea that there are justified forms of hate, and whether that hate is considered justified depends on the time and place in history, as such, it is necessary to also have a lot of seemingly irrelevant data to make the decision. This ties in quite well to the idea that a society can only be understood through an analysis of its history - that is, what has happened in order to lead it up until this point, and that men are largely (though as Marx notes not completely) products of their time; this view is known as historicism. I see that science-types (my apologies if this is offensive to some) tend to see society as merely thousands of one-off interactions between people, occuring here and there, the only difference being what each individual in the transaction brings to the table. I think that in this context of hate especially, this is too reductionist and insufficient. Similarly, what ought to be tolerated in a society? Should intolerance, which threatens to bring down the tolerant society, be tolerated? How about the subversive element which attempts to move for the liberation of peoples? Arguably a democracy should have a right to subvert itself, if the power is truly vested in the people. As Marcuse said, through mass media the expression of this subversive element is being blocked, and it may require apparently un-democratic means to open.

marrs 9y ago
I don't think the particular issue is with deciding what hate is. Your example said that the AI would understand all of those as hate, and I think it would be correct. What makes you so sure about that? What if the context is "I hate scientists...they keep proving me wrong". Is that a show of hatred or a tongue-in-cheek show of respect? And then there's all the stuff that people say that gets misunderstood by other people. And then there's all the gaming that's going to take place, where people realise they can silence their opponents by describing their opinions as being "hateful". Oh wait, that's happening already.
- etplayer 9y ago
  > What makes you so sure about that? What if the context is "I hate scientists...they keep proving me wrong". Is that a show of hatred or a tongue-in-cheek show of respect? You are correct, I didn't consider this, so there at least two problems with deciding what is hateful: (1) is the expression insincere?, (2) if it is sincere, is the hate justified? This is of course assuming such a machine can be designed to obtain the correct meaning of words in every case, which I think is impossible or close to it. Language is ambiguous, some languages more than others.
  - Govindae 9y ago
    This is a general NLP problem. People use language in more complicated ways than direct literal encoding. In the general case, it's a very hard problem, but hate specifically may not be so difficult. People tend not to use phrases like "kill all the" in unambiguous ways.
    - belovedeagle 9y ago
      However, a significant (not large, significant) proportion of Americans believe that the phrase "kill all the Nazis" is not hate because <reasons>, or at least is "justified hate", whatever that means.
      - etplayer 9y ago
        Although it's clearly hate, it is regarded as justified for reasons which some people agree with; a good read on this, from which I got the idea about the "subversive element" of society is Marcuse's essay Repressive Tolerance (1965), which you can find here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole...

marrs 9y ago

I don't think the particular issue is with deciding what hate is. Your example said that the AI would understand all of those as hate, and I think it would be correct. What makes you so sure about that? What if the context is "I hate scientists...they keep proving me wrong". Is that a show of hatred or a tongue-in-cheek show of respect? And then there's all the stuff that people say that gets misunderstood by other people. And then there's all the gaming that's going to take place, where people realise they can silence their opponents by describing their opinions as being "hateful". Oh wait, that's happening already.

etplayer 9y ago
> What makes you so sure about that? What if the context is "I hate scientists...they keep proving me wrong". Is that a show of hatred or a tongue-in-cheek show of respect? You are correct, I didn't consider this, so there at least two problems with deciding what is hateful: (1) is the expression insincere?, (2) if it is sincere, is the hate justified? This is of course assuming such a machine can be designed to obtain the correct meaning of words in every case, which I think is impossible or close to it. Language is ambiguous, some languages more than others.
- Govindae 9y ago
  This is a general NLP problem. People use language in more complicated ways than direct literal encoding. In the general case, it's a very hard problem, but hate specifically may not be so difficult. People tend not to use phrases like "kill all the" in unambiguous ways.
  - belovedeagle 9y ago
    However, a significant (not large, significant) proportion of Americans believe that the phrase "kill all the Nazis" is not hate because <reasons>, or at least is "justified hate", whatever that means.
    - etplayer 9y ago
      Although it's clearly hate, it is regarded as justified for reasons which some people agree with; a good read on this, from which I got the idea about the "subversive element" of society is Marcuse's essay Repressive Tolerance (1965), which you can find here: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetole...