5 ms·

So if I go off about how awful the Jews and the gays are, is that a "diverse viewpoint"?

by pupppet 4y ago

bobkazamakis 4y ago
assetlabel 4y ago
Diverse in this context means the different people on the council will have very different viewpoints from each other.
- tootie 4y ago
  I'm sure that already existed. Unless he intends to expand the diversity into the realm of racism or other types of bigotry or conspiracy beliefs. In my observation, Twitter is extremely permissive in what kind of speech it allows, drawing a line only at abject hate speech, threats or deliberate disinformation. None of that suffers from lack of diversity of viewpoints. Musk is either intending to allow a lot more shit flinging or he's really deluding himself that he can solve this problem. I'd honestly be more optimistic if he was bringing OpenAI in to do moderation.
- Latty 4y ago
  Right, so the game becomes making your viewpoint as extreme as possible to shift the window of the council in your favour. What could possibly go wrong. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. Just finding the middle of the viewpoints that exist isn't moderate because you can't just pretend that all sides have equal numbers of extremists and that somehow their views automatically "cancel out".
  - ErikVandeWater 4y ago
    > What could possibly go wrong. Simply stating a council will have diverse views is enough for people to ring the fire alarm these days.
    - Latty 4y ago
      With the context of Elon saying it, yes. Diverse views where the views are all reasonable is one thing, allowing extremists a platform to misinform and radicalise is not. Elon has made it clear he thinks extremist rhetoric such as Trump's should be allowed.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    > Not all viewpoints are equally valid. What makes you think your viewpoint is valid? It's intellectually weak and morally dubious to take such a stupid position.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pjkundert 4y ago
It will be, if Elon implements effective agent-based clustering, such as with K-Means Clustering. "Solving" content moderation is a losing battle -- there is no way to humanly moderate anything at the rate it can be produced, and Elon knows this. It's insane, so he probably won't do it. But, allowing content to be produced, but making sure no real person ever sees it, until the content producer earns their way into "your" group -- now that can be automated. Also, then the police and FBI could use all the evil content to "do their job" (but, I'm not holding my breath). Elon has access to Exascale hardware, so K-means Clusters with arbitrarily large dimensionality is at his disposal. The algorithms are linear in complexity, so should be parallelizable. I figure he might have thought this through...
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  Advertisers don't want placement next to "bad" content, whether or not the in-group likes that content. (That's probably a big reason why he wants subscription fees to take over advertiser revenue dominance.)
  - pjkundert 4y ago
    Of course. A wise advertiser would select a subset of the K-Means Clusters to advertise to. Like, probably the "not insane" ones.
- uniqueuid 4y ago
  I'd be interested to learn how you think kmeans helps either diversity or hate speech detection. I don't think it helps with any of either, as people's behavior, the context, the language used and sensibilities change across cultures and over time. What you call hate speech now may not be in the future and may not have been in the past. The best you could hope for is creating a fuzzy representation of the most visible problematic behavior and try to outrun model-world dealignment by constantly updating it.
  - pjkundert 4y ago
    The clustering responds to which tweets are up- and down-voted by the agent. And, the agent is moved closer to the clusters they like tweets from, and further from the clusters they dislike tweets from. The more diverse your likes (likes tweets in many other clusters), the broader and less restrictive your cluster weighting is -- the more variety you see. The more restrictive your selection, the less variety. You decide how much of an "echo chamber" you're in. But, if you don't like $BAD_THING, and you downvote enough tweets of $BAD_THING, the less you'll see tweets by people in groups where they like $BAD_THING.
wahnfrieden 4y ago
Yes, according to the newly unbanned accounts that were originally banned for that.
zo1 4y ago
Do you not see how that same type of hate is already directed at white people? Sanity has lost if you have to be some sort of "crazy right winger" to see the blatant hate and racism directed at white people. I'm writing this from a country that currently has a giant nationwide chain store that has a public "No Whites, Blacks Only" hiring policy.
ryzvonusef 4y ago
Why not? In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow. Infact these are cherished religious beliefs, even. Yet, there are viewpoints that would be considered so utterly innocent in the west as to be as unnoticeable as punctuation, that have led to actual mob violence and lynchings, and I am talking this decade, not some old era bygones. Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. You would think, oh surely I would never say anything offensive to any group, but for Funzies, have a scroll here: https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReports) https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport... So, whose blasphemies are considered sacred, mine or yours? Be careful when asking for diversity. You might get it. ---- Americans do seem to take free speech for granted.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  > Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. Just FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" is actually a widely-spread yet terrible example, as it was actually overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. So, yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually legally not addressed by either decision and the famous quote is part of an overturned ruling.
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    It's actually not a _terrible_ example it was partially overturned in brandenurg v ohio. It's still applicable if it actually inspires lawless action.
- SpaceManNabs 4y ago
  > In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow I don't think we should frame free speech standards based on Pakistan, if your bio is correct.

So if I go off about how awful the Jews and the gays are, is that a "diverse viewpoint"?

bobkazamakis 4y ago

assetlabel 4y ago

Diverse in this context means the different people on the council will have very different viewpoints from each other.

tootie 4y ago
I'm sure that already existed. Unless he intends to expand the diversity into the realm of racism or other types of bigotry or conspiracy beliefs. In my observation, Twitter is extremely permissive in what kind of speech it allows, drawing a line only at abject hate speech, threats or deliberate disinformation. None of that suffers from lack of diversity of viewpoints. Musk is either intending to allow a lot more shit flinging or he's really deluding himself that he can solve this problem. I'd honestly be more optimistic if he was bringing OpenAI in to do moderation.
Latty 4y ago
Right, so the game becomes making your viewpoint as extreme as possible to shift the window of the council in your favour. What could possibly go wrong. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. Just finding the middle of the viewpoints that exist isn't moderate because you can't just pretend that all sides have equal numbers of extremists and that somehow their views automatically "cancel out".
- ErikVandeWater 4y ago
  > What could possibly go wrong. Simply stating a council will have diverse views is enough for people to ring the fire alarm these days.
  - Latty 4y ago
    With the context of Elon saying it, yes. Diverse views where the views are all reasonable is one thing, allowing extremists a platform to misinform and radicalise is not. Elon has made it clear he thinks extremist rhetoric such as Trump's should be allowed.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  > Not all viewpoints are equally valid. What makes you think your viewpoint is valid? It's intellectually weak and morally dubious to take such a stupid position.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pjkundert 4y ago

It will be, if Elon implements effective agent-based clustering, such as with K-Means Clustering. "Solving" content moderation is a losing battle -- there is no way to humanly moderate anything at the rate it can be produced, and Elon knows this. It's insane, so he probably won't do it. But, allowing content to be produced, but making sure no real person ever sees it, until the content producer earns their way into "your" group -- now that can be automated. Also, then the police and FBI could use all the evil content to "do their job" (but, I'm not holding my breath). Elon has access to Exascale hardware, so K-means Clusters with arbitrarily large dimensionality is at his disposal. The algorithms are linear in complexity, so should be parallelizable. I figure he might have thought this through...

wahnfrieden 4y ago
Advertisers don't want placement next to "bad" content, whether or not the in-group likes that content. (That's probably a big reason why he wants subscription fees to take over advertiser revenue dominance.)
- pjkundert 4y ago
  Of course. A wise advertiser would select a subset of the K-Means Clusters to advertise to. Like, probably the "not insane" ones.
uniqueuid 4y ago
I'd be interested to learn how you think kmeans helps either diversity or hate speech detection. I don't think it helps with any of either, as people's behavior, the context, the language used and sensibilities change across cultures and over time. What you call hate speech now may not be in the future and may not have been in the past. The best you could hope for is creating a fuzzy representation of the most visible problematic behavior and try to outrun model-world dealignment by constantly updating it.
- pjkundert 4y ago
  The clustering responds to which tweets are up- and down-voted by the agent. And, the agent is moved closer to the clusters they like tweets from, and further from the clusters they dislike tweets from. The more diverse your likes (likes tweets in many other clusters), the broader and less restrictive your cluster weighting is -- the more variety you see. The more restrictive your selection, the less variety. You decide how much of an "echo chamber" you're in. But, if you don't like $BAD_THING, and you downvote enough tweets of $BAD_THING, the less you'll see tweets by people in groups where they like $BAD_THING.

wahnfrieden 4y ago

Yes, according to the newly unbanned accounts that were originally banned for that.

zo1 4y ago

Do you not see how that same type of hate is already directed at white people? Sanity has lost if you have to be some sort of "crazy right winger" to see the blatant hate and racism directed at white people. I'm writing this from a country that currently has a giant nationwide chain store that has a public "No Whites, Blacks Only" hiring policy.

ryzvonusef 4y ago

Why not? In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow. Infact these are cherished religious beliefs, even. Yet, there are viewpoints that would be considered so utterly innocent in the west as to be as unnoticeable as punctuation, that have led to actual mob violence and lynchings, and I am talking this decade, not some old era bygones. Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. You would think, oh surely I would never say anything offensive to any group, but for Funzies, have a scroll here: https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReports) https://twitter.com/search?q=blasphemy%20(from%3ASAMRIReport... So, whose blasphemies are considered sacred, mine or yours? Be careful when asking for diversity. You might get it. ---- Americans do seem to take free speech for granted.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
> Such speech is considered equivalent to yelling "Fire" in an open theater, to use a common internet retort on free speech, because of the effect it has on the masses, and we have laws on blasphemy specifically for this. Just FYI, the "fire in a crowded theater" is actually a widely-spread yet terrible example, as it was actually overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. So, yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually legally not addressed by either decision and the famous quote is part of an overturned ruling.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  It's actually not a _terrible_ example it was partially overturned in brandenurg v ohio. It's still applicable if it actually inspires lawless action.
SpaceManNabs 4y ago
> In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow I don't think we should frame free speech standards based on Pakistan, if your bio is correct.