3 ms·
That would be fine if they didn't insist that the automation simply flagged it so humans could review it for the final decision.
by ameister14 9y ago
That would be fine if they didn't insist that the automation simply flagged it so humans could review it for the final decision.
- Mtinie 9y agoThat appears to be what happened in this case.
- saalweachter 9y agoEh, human review isn't all that and a bag of chips. Firstly you have the subjective problems in human review, that different humans will find different things egregious. Secondly you still have the context problems: would the humans have been more likely to review the videos in the context of a reporter reporting on evidence presented in a court trial? Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly from the standpoint of anyone building a system to moderate content, you have the human toll: most of the content the humans are reviewing is going to be highly objectionable to most humans, by definition. Expecting humans to review this content day in, day out and not have it take a psychological toll is not realistic; you can find interviews with people who have done this work for various companies, and the tales of their burnout. (This is not meant to defend Google or condone what the reporter is going through, etc, just to point out that "make humans review everything" is not a slam-dunk answer.)