3 ms·

Now we're talking about humans doing data labor to help enable computer systems tell cats from dogs in imagines in a rigorous way. Now that we've rejected the A

by Kalium 6y ago

Now we're talking about humans doing data labor to help enable computer systems tell cats from dogs in imagines in a rigorous way. Now that we've rejected the AI philosophy and refuse to use the AI way of thinking and remember and center the human, what have we gained? I feel like I'm talking to a college sophomore who has learned that framing and jargon are useful rhetorical tools, but hasn't learned that they serve useful purposes.

unishark 6y ago
I'd say the authors have impressive resumes, though the arguments about economics and society are too far out there for me. So I didn't read very far into that stuff to see what they have gained from the position. But I see it more as using accurate descriptions rather than just alternatives, which does have value in not misleading people.
ssivark 6y ago
> Now that we've rejected the AI philosophy and refuse to use the AI way of thinking and remember and center the human, what have we gained? Very simple. If we contextual ever the contribution of the people, then why if it that Google captures most of the value of search ads, rather than the people who created the web pages that Google scraped? Why don’t they get a greater say in Google’s comment policies and ranking biases, including influencing which algorithms are appropriate for which context?
- Kalium 6y ago
  I'm afraid I don't understand. In what way does contextualizing and centering human agency and humanity change how these questions are asked and considered in ways unavailable to us today? Wouldn't we also need to weight the human work and labor that went into all that scraping, organizing, and making Google possible? Wouldn't we need to consider the humanity of the person making the query, who may not want what the human who controls a given website that was scraped by the humans at Google wants?
  - ssivark 6y ago
    > I'm afraid I don't understand. In what way does contextualizing and centering human agency and humanity change how these questions are asked and considered in ways unavailable to us today? Because today, Google’s search algorithm is assumed to have maximum value among the pieces, and Google gets to capture far more value than the people who generate the training data for search. > Wouldn't we need to consider the humanity of the person making the query, who may not want what the human who controls a given website that was scraped by the humans at Google wants? Oh, absolutely! The point is that would further lower the weight/importance/power we ought to allocate to Google’s algorithms. Again, prioritizing the human roles & needs, rather than fetishizing the “AI”.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- theamk 6y ago
  Because of the humans -- the content consumers, like me and you. There were a number of websites which relied on humans (like old yahoo catalog and opendmoz). They still exist (I think), but humans did not choose them. There is a whole bunch of other search engines other than Google, and I am sure some of them give way more control to creators. Humans did not choose them either -- likely because other humans filled them with spam and SEO. It is all about humans -- they are the real decisive force because they get to choose if AI lives or dies. (That said, as a part of this "decisive force", I feel modern Google products have way too many ads, and that current developments are against my interest. I guess this does show that as long as your software is great, you can charge great price, in $$$ or in attention to ads)

by Kalium 6y ago

unishark 6y ago

I'd say the authors have impressive resumes, though the arguments about economics and society are too far out there for me. So I didn't read very far into that stuff to see what they have gained from the position. But I see it more as using accurate descriptions rather than just alternatives, which does have value in not misleading people.

ssivark 6y ago

> Now that we've rejected the AI philosophy and refuse to use the AI way of thinking and remember and center the human, what have we gained? Very simple. If we contextual ever the contribution of the people, then why if it that Google captures most of the value of search ads, rather than the people who created the web pages that Google scraped? Why don’t they get a greater say in Google’s comment policies and ranking biases, including influencing which algorithms are appropriate for which context?

Kalium 6y ago
I'm afraid I don't understand. In what way does contextualizing and centering human agency and humanity change how these questions are asked and considered in ways unavailable to us today? Wouldn't we also need to weight the human work and labor that went into all that scraping, organizing, and making Google possible? Wouldn't we need to consider the humanity of the person making the query, who may not want what the human who controls a given website that was scraped by the humans at Google wants?
- ssivark 6y ago
  > I'm afraid I don't understand. In what way does contextualizing and centering human agency and humanity change how these questions are asked and considered in ways unavailable to us today? Because today, Google’s search algorithm is assumed to have maximum value among the pieces, and Google gets to capture far more value than the people who generate the training data for search. > Wouldn't we need to consider the humanity of the person making the query, who may not want what the human who controls a given website that was scraped by the humans at Google wants? Oh, absolutely! The point is that would further lower the weight/importance/power we ought to allocate to Google’s algorithms. Again, prioritizing the human roles & needs, rather than fetishizing the “AI”.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
theamk 6y ago
Because of the humans -- the content consumers, like me and you. There were a number of websites which relied on humans (like old yahoo catalog and opendmoz). They still exist (I think), but humans did not choose them. There is a whole bunch of other search engines other than Google, and I am sure some of them give way more control to creators. Humans did not choose them either -- likely because other humans filled them with spam and SEO. It is all about humans -- they are the real decisive force because they get to choose if AI lives or dies. (That said, as a part of this "decisive force", I feel modern Google products have way too many ads, and that current developments are against my interest. I guess this does show that as long as your software is great, you can charge great price, in $$$ or in attention to ads)