2 ms·

Do you have a more plausible explanation than the algorithm is selecting for "harmful to parent corp revenue" but they won't admit it outright?

jerf 5y ago
I have at least a possible one. I bet there's a reasonable chance if we saw the output of the auto-generated transcript (which I'm sure is generated even if it not presented) we'd all be able to scan through it and then say "Oh, oh yeah, I bet this mis-transcribed phrase is what did it". I don't favor the "protecting corporate interests" theory because of this: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=install+nextcloud https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=install+nextclo... Doesn't exactly look heavily censored to me. The core problem remains what people have observed before, which is that Google, and the tech industry in general, seals people off from any support mechanism, other than "generate outrage on social media". Little by little, this becomes a bit more abusive every year.
- imglorp 5y ago
  I'm down with mistranscription into something offensive, but then why would the appeal fail with the same condition? Could the appeal button be a placebo?
  - jerf 5y ago
    It wouldn't be the first time we've collectively thought the button was a placebo. We also don't know what "human review" constitutes. It may well constitute a human simply reading the incorrect transcription and agreeing that it violates policy, without any reference to the audio track. The details of how these tech companies are overdependent on AI are not publicly known, we merely observe the consequences that can only be explained with reference to it. So I can't tell you if there was never even a human involved in the appeal, or a bad human, or one who didn't care, or whatever. We can only infer the possibility space from the outcome, not nail down the exact details.

2 ms·

Do you have a more plausible explanation than the algorithm is selecting for "harmful to parent corp revenue" but they won't admit it outright?

by imglorp 5y ago

jerf 5y ago
I have at least a possible one. I bet there's a reasonable chance if we saw the output of the auto-generated transcript (which I'm sure is generated even if it not presented) we'd all be able to scan through it and then say "Oh, oh yeah, I bet this mis-transcribed phrase is what did it". I don't favor the "protecting corporate interests" theory because of this: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=install+nextcloud https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=install+nextclo... Doesn't exactly look heavily censored to me. The core problem remains what people have observed before, which is that Google, and the tech industry in general, seals people off from any support mechanism, other than "generate outrage on social media". Little by little, this becomes a bit more abusive every year.
- imglorp 5y ago
  I'm down with mistranscription into something offensive, but then why would the appeal fail with the same condition? Could the appeal button be a placebo?
  - jerf 5y ago
    It wouldn't be the first time we've collectively thought the button was a placebo. We also don't know what "human review" constitutes. It may well constitute a human simply reading the incorrect transcription and agreeing that it violates policy, without any reference to the audio track. The details of how these tech companies are overdependent on AI are not publicly known, we merely observe the consequences that can only be explained with reference to it. So I can't tell you if there was never even a human involved in the appeal, or a bad human, or one who didn't care, or whatever. We can only infer the possibility space from the outcome, not nail down the exact details.