4 ms·

Of course we know how to fix this kids aren’t magic and neither are adults. Explain the rules, explain why the behaviour they are exhibiting is unacceptable and

Of course we know how to fix this kids aren’t magic and neither are adults. Explain the rules, explain why the behaviour they are exhibiting is unacceptable and punish them accordingly. I don’t know if you have kids but the one being insulted is capable of explaining things to the parents who then adjudicate. The same is largely true for communities as well. You get the community based on the norms you allow to establish and defend. Part of that is being involved enough to understand what’s happening. There of course isn’t a perfect solution and likely never will be.

vidarh 5y ago
I do have kids, and I find your solution naive exactly because neither kids nor adults are magic. The problem is that unless you observe the behaviour yourself as it happens, with substantial context, the idea that you can reliably know whether the behaviour was unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. This is exactly what the choice of innocuous terms is for; to create plausible deniability. E.g. the word "camembert" thrown at someone out of the blue might be obvious because it stands out. But that's not the story you're going to get from the person who has used it as an insult. You're going to get a story about how they just talked about what they like to eat, or something like that. You might see through that, but what quickly happens - what indeed happened with the brothers in my example - was that the person making the insults quickly calibrates to know exactly what results in a reaction and what creates enough plausible deniability that the person deciding if this is sanctionable is unable to determine with any reliability whether what they're hearing genuinely is an insult or the "target" being oversensitive and misinterpreting things. I was bullied at school at times, and saw this first hand as a target myself - the bullies quickly learned which ways they could word themselves to make the insults clear to me while creating enough plausible deniability even when there was no conflicting claims about what exactly they'd said. Point being being that humans even with context and in the position to interrogate the people involved can't solve this with any kind of reliability. Then the notion that an AI at current state of the art without access to context or the ability to interrogate those involved doesn't stand a chance.
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  > The problem is that unless you observe the behaviour yourself as it happens, with substantial context, the idea that you can reliably know whether the behaviour was unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. Yes but we're not trying to be perfect, we have to live and deal with this grey area. > Point being being that humans even with context and in the position to interrogate the people involved can't solve this with any kind of reliability. I disagree here, I think we can quite reliably do this a great amount of the time. There are absolutely bad actors who will get away with things in the short term but because context builds up over time it never lasts. And once you are aware they're trying to be subversive its much easier to spot earlier. It's not an attack with legs. > Then the notion that an AI at current state of the art without access to context or the ability to interrogate those involved doesn't stand a chance. I absolutely agree here. And I'm sorry the people in charge were rubbish at protecting you from bullying.

vidarh 5y ago

I do have kids, and I find your solution naive exactly because neither kids nor adults are magic. The problem is that unless you observe the behaviour yourself as it happens, with substantial context, the idea that you can reliably know whether the behaviour was unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. This is exactly what the choice of innocuous terms is for; to create plausible deniability. E.g. the word "camembert" thrown at someone out of the blue might be obvious because it stands out. But that's not the story you're going to get from the person who has used it as an insult. You're going to get a story about how they just talked about what they like to eat, or something like that. You might see through that, but what quickly happens - what indeed happened with the brothers in my example - was that the person making the insults quickly calibrates to know exactly what results in a reaction and what creates enough plausible deniability that the person deciding if this is sanctionable is unable to determine with any reliability whether what they're hearing genuinely is an insult or the "target" being oversensitive and misinterpreting things. I was bullied at school at times, and saw this first hand as a target myself - the bullies quickly learned which ways they could word themselves to make the insults clear to me while creating enough plausible deniability even when there was no conflicting claims about what exactly they'd said. Point being being that humans even with context and in the position to interrogate the people involved can't solve this with any kind of reliability. Then the notion that an AI at current state of the art without access to context or the ability to interrogate those involved doesn't stand a chance.

meheleventyone 5y ago
> The problem is that unless you observe the behaviour yourself as it happens, with substantial context, the idea that you can reliably know whether the behaviour was unacceptable is fundamentally flawed. Yes but we're not trying to be perfect, we have to live and deal with this grey area. > Point being being that humans even with context and in the position to interrogate the people involved can't solve this with any kind of reliability. I disagree here, I think we can quite reliably do this a great amount of the time. There are absolutely bad actors who will get away with things in the short term but because context builds up over time it never lasts. And once you are aware they're trying to be subversive its much easier to spot earlier. It's not an attack with legs. > Then the notion that an AI at current state of the art without access to context or the ability to interrogate those involved doesn't stand a chance. I absolutely agree here. And I'm sorry the people in charge were rubbish at protecting you from bullying.