4 ms·

"Our team" is quite often a lie. Why do you assume that a human was involved? Especially when it comes to Google, who notoriously skimps on human support staff.

by devmor 5y ago

water8 5y ago
It's a bad idea to give liars the benefit of the doubt
dbuder 5y ago
They lie both ways too, whenever there is a public kerfuffle they always blame the algorithm / the AI.
thu2111 5y ago
Because I worked there and back then, when Google claimed content had been manually reviewed, it had been. It might have been by a low wage worker in India or Brazil and they might have spent 20 seconds on it, but there was a person in the loop. That's why I turned this around. Why do you assume they're lying, without evidence?
- hervature 5y ago
  Choosing to die on that hill of technicality seems like a silly choice. People say "human" but they really mean "a person who diligently considered the content, probably watched the video more than once, understood what they were watching, and possibly has a chance to debate with another human". Or, you know, a reasonable definition for "human in the loop".
  - admax88q 5y ago
    It seems you're defining "human in the loop" as "Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case." I believe the point that thu2111 is trying to make is that there _are_ humans in the loop, and having them is no insurance against unilateral decisions that you disagree with or even just plain stupid decisions. The point is that involving more humans in the moderation decisions at YouTube does not guarantee nor is there any evidence to suggest, that it would result in better moderation. Somebody with the technical and industry knowledge to know that talking about security vulnerabilities like this shouldn't be removed can probably find a better job that YouTube video moderation.
    - hervature 5y ago
      There are plenty of cases where I disagree with the outcome of companies I interact with. When I spend 30 minutes chatting with an agent via text with Amazon or airlines, I might leave the conversation disappointed, but I never doubt their conscientiousness. I highly doubt United beat me at the Turing Test.
    - tremon 5y ago
      Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case. I'll settle for "Google makes a well-informed decision and will communicate the weighted pros and cons that led to that decision."
    - kelnos 5y ago
      I would accept that Google will sometimes make the wrong decision, but it's unacceptable that the care given toward making that decision stops at a low-wage worker in another country spending 20 seconds on the decision. There's a very wide chasm between "an AI decided" or "someone spent 20 seconds on it", and "we hired an expert in every possible field and they thoroughly research the facts at hand before making a decision". The latter is obviously not feasible, but there are many options in between that will give markedly better outcomes than the status quo while not making YT moderation economically infeasible.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- SirSourdough 5y ago
  Why wouldn't we assume they are lying? Interacting with their dispute process doesn't have any human qualities, so what would make us think that humans are involved? They are a massive monopoly and just the other day it was reported that they manipulated their own ad markets for their own profit. They constantly inaccurately accuse people of malicious intent and copyright infringement, often massively hindering peoples' careers and generally providing zero recourse. To not assume lying and at best self-serving intent given Alphabet/Google's position in the world would be foolish. On top of that, is it really that different to use inaccurate AI or to use humans who are intentionally not given the time or tools to do human-quality work? The problem is obviously with the overall quality of moderation, and the level of power exerted by platforms over users. Whether a non-skilled human reviewer or an AI is handling the broken process hardly matters given the results.

"Our team" is quite often a lie. Why do you assume that a human was involved? Especially when it comes to Google, who notoriously skimps on human support staff.

by devmor 5y ago

"Our team" is quite often a lie. Why do you assume that a human was involved? Especially when it comes to Google, who notoriously skimps on human support staff.

water8 5y ago

It's a bad idea to give liars the benefit of the doubt

dbuder 5y ago

They lie both ways too, whenever there is a public kerfuffle they always blame the algorithm / the AI.

thu2111 5y ago

Because I worked there and back then, when Google claimed content had been manually reviewed, it had been. It might have been by a low wage worker in India or Brazil and they might have spent 20 seconds on it, but there was a person in the loop. That's why I turned this around. Why do you assume they're lying, without evidence?

hervature 5y ago
Choosing to die on that hill of technicality seems like a silly choice. People say "human" but they really mean "a person who diligently considered the content, probably watched the video more than once, understood what they were watching, and possibly has a chance to debate with another human". Or, you know, a reasonable definition for "human in the loop".
- admax88q 5y ago
  It seems you're defining "human in the loop" as "Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case." I believe the point that thu2111 is trying to make is that there _are_ humans in the loop, and having them is no insurance against unilateral decisions that you disagree with or even just plain stupid decisions. The point is that involving more humans in the moderation decisions at YouTube does not guarantee nor is there any evidence to suggest, that it would result in better moderation. Somebody with the technical and industry knowledge to know that talking about security vulnerabilities like this shouldn't be removed can probably find a better job that YouTube video moderation.
  - hervature 5y ago
    There are plenty of cases where I disagree with the outcome of companies I interact with. When I spend 30 minutes chatting with an agent via text with Amazon or airlines, I might leave the conversation disappointed, but I never doubt their conscientiousness. I highly doubt United beat me at the Turing Test.
  - tremon 5y ago
    Google makes what I consider to be the correct decision in this case. I'll settle for "Google makes a well-informed decision and will communicate the weighted pros and cons that led to that decision."
  - kelnos 5y ago
    I would accept that Google will sometimes make the wrong decision, but it's unacceptable that the care given toward making that decision stops at a low-wage worker in another country spending 20 seconds on the decision. There's a very wide chasm between "an AI decided" or "someone spent 20 seconds on it", and "we hired an expert in every possible field and they thoroughly research the facts at hand before making a decision". The latter is obviously not feasible, but there are many options in between that will give markedly better outcomes than the status quo while not making YT moderation economically infeasible.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
SirSourdough 5y ago
Why wouldn't we assume they are lying? Interacting with their dispute process doesn't have any human qualities, so what would make us think that humans are involved? They are a massive monopoly and just the other day it was reported that they manipulated their own ad markets for their own profit. They constantly inaccurately accuse people of malicious intent and copyright infringement, often massively hindering peoples' careers and generally providing zero recourse. To not assume lying and at best self-serving intent given Alphabet/Google's position in the world would be foolish. On top of that, is it really that different to use inaccurate AI or to use humans who are intentionally not given the time or tools to do human-quality work? The problem is obviously with the overall quality of moderation, and the level of power exerted by platforms over users. Whether a non-skilled human reviewer or an AI is handling the broken process hardly matters given the results.