4 ms·

it's fascinating that this [satirical] comment is the top post while the article itself has simultaneously made the front page. like the comment above alludes t

by modzu 7y ago

it's fascinating that this [satirical] comment is the top post while the article itself has simultaneously made the front page. like the comment above alludes to, this article is absurd, yet, there seem to be many who take it seriously (presumably the researchers studying "queer hci", whatever that is)?

malvosenior 7y ago
I 100% disagree with the original article but upvoted it because I think it's important that people see that there exists attempts to push platforms to manipulate their users for ideological reasons. It's good to shine the flashlight under the rock.
- modzu 7y ago
  yes, no doubt many upvoted it for exactly that reason. my fear is that the publicity works to further legitimize it
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    I don't think it needs to be legitimized with the general audience to be implemented. The more people that see this, the less likely it is to come to fruition. These types of programs don't get pushed through due to popular request. They get snuck through the back door based solely on the political motivations of employees and outside activists.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
repolfx 7y ago
Absurd but also predicted, no? I am sure I recall people joking here on HN about how de-"biased" dating sites would surely arrive at some point soon, and here we are. Bear in mind this comes from the same school of thought that brought us "air conditioning is sexist": https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/air-conditioning-office-still-sexist-dont-care-anyone-says/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/air-conditioning-offi... If anything I find myself agreeing with that author in a strict logical sense: if there are two temps that are comfortable and it's set to the colder one for men, you can argue that's sexist by the dictionary definition, albeit also practical. But it's still kind of absurd. Researchers also got unhappy that an AI trained on bulk text learned doctors are usually men and nurses are usually women. Their solution wasn't to try and encourage more men into nursing and vice-versa, but rather, to edit the AI so it believed in equal outcomes.
mindslight 7y ago
The thing is that both viewpoints are basically worthwhile [0]. But this "algorithmic" optimization based around being ahead of individuals needs to choose one uniform "correct" framework for everybody, forcing these disagreements front and center. It used to be that people could go their own ways with live and let live, with change happening at a gristly organic boundary - eg an older generation pressuring a newer generation to conform to their biases / newer generation individually choosing to defy or follow. Now we've got these centralized companies putting themselves in the position of "knowing best", and given that the thing they're really optimizing for is their own bottom line, we know they're going to get it wrong. [0] I've only read the abstract of the article, so I can't tell if its authors step over the line into unreasonableness. But I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, as there is a novel issue here. edit: Oh jeeze. It seems my "benefit of the doubt" was wholly undeserved. I still stand by my general point, but in relation to some imaginary article where the authors explored users' mild preferences being extrapolated into much stricter "filter bubbles". These stakes of choosing "one true answer" are really bringing the tripe out, as well as fueling the reactions to it.

by modzu 7y ago

malvosenior 7y ago

I 100% disagree with the original article but upvoted it because I think it's important that people see that there exists attempts to push platforms to manipulate their users for ideological reasons. It's good to shine the flashlight under the rock.

modzu 7y ago
yes, no doubt many upvoted it for exactly that reason. my fear is that the publicity works to further legitimize it
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I don't think it needs to be legitimized with the general audience to be implemented. The more people that see this, the less likely it is to come to fruition. These types of programs don't get pushed through due to popular request. They get snuck through the back door based solely on the political motivations of employees and outside activists.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

repolfx 7y ago

Absurd but also predicted, no? I am sure I recall people joking here on HN about how de-"biased" dating sites would surely arrive at some point soon, and here we are. Bear in mind this comes from the same school of thought that brought us "air conditioning is sexist": https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/air-conditioning-office-still-sexist-dont-care-anyone-says/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/air-conditioning-offi... If anything I find myself agreeing with that author in a strict logical sense: if there are two temps that are comfortable and it's set to the colder one for men, you can argue that's sexist by the dictionary definition, albeit also practical. But it's still kind of absurd. Researchers also got unhappy that an AI trained on bulk text learned doctors are usually men and nurses are usually women. Their solution wasn't to try and encourage more men into nursing and vice-versa, but rather, to edit the AI so it believed in equal outcomes.

mindslight 7y ago

The thing is that both viewpoints are basically worthwhile [0]. But this "algorithmic" optimization based around being ahead of individuals needs to choose one uniform "correct" framework for everybody, forcing these disagreements front and center. It used to be that people could go their own ways with live and let live, with change happening at a gristly organic boundary - eg an older generation pressuring a newer generation to conform to their biases / newer generation individually choosing to defy or follow. Now we've got these centralized companies putting themselves in the position of "knowing best", and given that the thing they're really optimizing for is their own bottom line, we know they're going to get it wrong. [0] I've only read the abstract of the article, so I can't tell if its authors step over the line into unreasonableness. But I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, as there is a novel issue here. edit: Oh jeeze. It seems my "benefit of the doubt" was wholly undeserved. I still stand by my general point, but in relation to some imaginary article where the authors explored users' mild preferences being extrapolated into much stricter "filter bubbles". These stakes of choosing "one true answer" are really bringing the tripe out, as well as fueling the reactions to it.