3 ms·
> If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unsee
by jakelazaroff 7y ago
> If this is the case, that's tragic in the dramatic sense -- LGBT groups fighting algorithms that are protecting them, because they can't appreciate the unseen danger prevented.
I don't think the article or GP are saying this. The algorithms, while ostensibly well-intentioned, are actually having the opposite effect — stifling the speech of the LGBTQ+ community while allowing their harassers to operate mostly unchecked.
- mushufasa 7y agoIf they block 40% of real hate speech but also 5% of false positives (lgbt commenting on hate speech) I would say the algorithms are working overall. I have no way to know the real numbers but I am assuming Google monitors overall effectiveness of algorithms and only use what works.
- monocasa 7y agoIf they're having trouble classifying, they might not have good data on effectiveness.
- mushufasa 7y agoYou would have human review of a random sample to test effectiveness. In fact, this is usually how the ML algorithms are constructed in the first place, e.g. supervised learning. So yes I think they should have this.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoOkay, but why do you think the numbers look anything like that? Conversely, if they block 5% of hate speech but are 40% false positives, then the algorithms are clearly not working. We have no reason to assume they're effective, and in fact this lawsuit contends that they're actually harmful.