6 ms·

If you click through to the mirror from the /r/livestreamfail page, the clip actually comes across (to me) as making fun of the people who make those kinds of j

by d23 4y ago

If you click through to the mirror from the /r/livestreamfail page, the clip actually comes across (to me) as making fun of the people who make those kinds of jokes.

brookst 4y ago
I agree, but it’s ambiguous enough to be poor taste and feel uncomfortable. My first instinct is that Twitch is overreacting, but I can see why they need to be pretty draconian to avoid endless boundary-pushing from jerks.
- pirate787 4y ago
  Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking.
  - mistersquid 4y ago
    > Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking. By that reductively absurd measure, Earl Butz is an artist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resigna...
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    Which is cool and all, great for a democracy etc, but it gets people killed as well if you cross the line with the wrong people [0]. I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
    - msm_ 4y ago
      > I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. I don't really understand the point you're making. Killing is orders of magnitude more wrong thank "being a dick" (meaning: making an offsensive or bad joke). I'm sure you agree, so I don't see what's the goal of this comparison. And I think that using Charlie Hebdo in this context is a bad taste. Saying "see, it got people killed, so they were doing something wrong" is basically acknowledging that terrorism works. People that died in Charlie Hebdo did nothing to deserve this.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Art doesn’t kill people, killers do. Surprised this has to be said.
    - mjr00 4y ago
      It's wild what a difference 8 years makes. I remember at the time of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, it was universally condemned across the political spectrum as an attack on journalism and freedom of speech. Only those on the fringes of the political spectrum would have even implied that the cartoonists were remotely at fault. I'd be very curious how widespread your opinion is these days now that support of artistic censorship has become much more mainstream.
    - negidius 4y ago
      That's ridiculous. The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is 100% the fault of the terrorists who carried out the attack. They are the only ones who got people killed. The victims did not get anyone killed. Saying or publishing something that someone else finds offensive is not in the same category as violence. It cannot be meaningfully compared. Any violence is infinitely worse than even the most offensive speech.
  - dogleash 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but I don't think Twitch considers art a factor in deciding what they want on-platform. Their actions communicate that the platform is meant for game grinding, light entertainment, and softcore porn.
  - btown 4y ago
    Intent matters, and there are a lot of people who would say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate. A temporary ban while there is ambiguity about the intent is not unreasonable. But Twitch should be criticized if it persists in the ban after it discovers, as it should have by now, that it was not the intention of this channel's creators, and that the channel's creators are working in good faith to prevent anything that could be construed as normalizing hate in the future.
    - jimmaswell 4y ago
      > say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate The "but nobody is laughing" part would run counter to this. The premise of the whole joke is that the referenced jokes aren't funny.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Yeah, but it’s that weird “I was only kidding, can’t you take a joke” space. Like everyone agrees that shouting racial slurs is bad behavior, but does the characterization change if you then say “see, nobody approved”?
        btown 4y ago
        And it's not far from the "can't you take a joke" space to the "I'm making fun of how woke the audience has become" space. And heaven knows there's plenty of training data on the web to train an AI to mimic and normalize the latter!
  - brookst 4y ago
    So the homeless guy yelling racial slurs at non-white drivers every day on my way to work is an artist? I guess I hadn’t thought about it that way.
- gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
  My stand with most (not all) things like this is that intent matters; there are a lot of things (especially with jokes/comedy) where nuance and discernment are key. I disagree with your draconian approach (but I understand where it’s coming from) because I do not think that issues like these should be just swept under the rug.
  - retrac 4y ago
    > intent matters Ironically, machines autogenerating Seinfeld-like scripts literally cannot have intent. We can go a step back to the intent of the creators of the system. I assume the creators did not intend to auto-generate distasteful and/or bigoted jokes. But it's Seinfeld-like. And it seems if it's supposed to generate bad jokes eventually it'll make some mean jokes. It's something of an interesting thought experiment about intent vs. effect with publication of speech. All effect, no intent. Prima facie, I can see the logic in treating the operator of the AI legally/socially responsible in the same way as if they had published the material themselves. If you unleash a bot that e.g. goes around writing defamatory book reviews, you should be liable for defamation. But I am not sure.
    - brookst 4y ago
      This topic has existed forever. One way society deals with it is the concept of negligence: someone can be responsible for bad outcomes even if they did not intend to create the outcome. We treat negligence differently from malice in both criminal and civil contexts, and even within negligence there are gradations about whether or not a reasonable person would have foreseen the outcome. I think LLMs slot into that model just fine.
  - r3trohack3r 4y ago
    > My stand with most (not all) things like this is that intent matters Really curious how this applies to infinite, AI generated, content without oversight. Like, what is the “intent” in this Seinfeld example. Can an LLM have “intent”?
    - 4y ago
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  Twitch has absolutely no problem with boundary pushing. The ridiculous hot tub streaming drama and the thousands of examples of Twitch preying on children with soft core porn should make that obvious enough. The problem with Twitch isn’t boundaries, but that they can’t have the wrong people pushing boundaries if you know what I mean.
draw_down 4y ago
[dead]
verytrivial 4y ago
The topic is taboo. I cannot be freely discussed on these platforms regardless of the position taken.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Rovoska 4y ago
  [flagged]
- solbloch 4y ago
  Which probably isn't a good strategy to handle taboo topics long-term.
  - contravariant 4y ago
    Sure it is, it's been successfully used to oppress people for ages.
  - birracerveza 4y ago
    No, I'm sure if we ignore the problem long enough it will go away eventually.
  - wtcactus 4y ago
    I'm substantially more worried about returning to a society with openly enforced taboos. I thought we had left that in the past century, but I was clearly too optimistic.
    - nness 4y ago
      When did it stop...
  - jollyllama 4y ago
    It's the naive approach. The same approach that gets Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer banned even though they were very egalitarian for the time.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
rom-antics 4y ago
I saw it as a joke about an 80s/90s comedian being dropped into the 21st century and bombing a set trying to use old material. It's not a bad premise for a joke and could probably even work IRL if you polish it up. It's too bad they mentioned the T-word though, I guess you're not allowed to say that anymore even in passing.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago
  Would hate to hurt the feelings of the mob, and you know how important their feelings are.
  - edgyquant 4y ago
    Increasingly less each time something like this happens.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Go watch Eddie Murphy's older standup. It's mostly still funny, but there are definitely jokes that would be booed nowadays. I'm okay with that though, because those jokes should have been booed back then honestly.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jmull 4y ago
I don't see how including a comment that the offensive jokes aren't funny make them less offensive. As if anything is innocuous if couched like "Here are some jokes I would tell except they aren't funny: (a series of offensive jokes)"
hot_gril 4y ago
It's here, btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qxcouuH3u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qxcouuH3u0 Pet peeve of mine is when 20 sources report on something without the original material.
- hot_gril 4y ago
  Not anymore: "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country."

by d23 4y ago

If you click through to the mirror from the /r/livestreamfail page, the clip actually comes across (to me) as making fun of the people who make those kinds of jokes.

brookst 4y ago

I agree, but it’s ambiguous enough to be poor taste and feel uncomfortable. My first instinct is that Twitch is overreacting, but I can see why they need to be pretty draconian to avoid endless boundary-pushing from jerks.

pirate787 4y ago
Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking.
- mistersquid 4y ago
  > Artists are what we call the people who push against the boundaries of majority group-speak and government mandated thinking. By that reductively absurd measure, Earl Butz is an artist. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resignation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Butz#Scandals_and_resigna...
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Which is cool and all, great for a democracy etc, but it gets people killed as well if you cross the line with the wrong people [0]. I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
  - msm_ 4y ago
    > I mean killing is wrong, but so is being a dick. I don't really understand the point you're making. Killing is orders of magnitude more wrong thank "being a dick" (meaning: making an offsensive or bad joke). I'm sure you agree, so I don't see what's the goal of this comparison. And I think that using Charlie Hebdo in this context is a bad taste. Saying "see, it got people killed, so they were doing something wrong" is basically acknowledging that terrorism works. People that died in Charlie Hebdo did nothing to deserve this.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Art doesn’t kill people, killers do. Surprised this has to be said.
  - mjr00 4y ago
    It's wild what a difference 8 years makes. I remember at the time of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack, it was universally condemned across the political spectrum as an attack on journalism and freedom of speech. Only those on the fringes of the political spectrum would have even implied that the cartoonists were remotely at fault. I'd be very curious how widespread your opinion is these days now that support of artistic censorship has become much more mainstream.
  - negidius 4y ago
    That's ridiculous. The Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack is 100% the fault of the terrorists who carried out the attack. They are the only ones who got people killed. The victims did not get anyone killed. Saying or publishing something that someone else finds offensive is not in the same category as violence. It cannot be meaningfully compared. Any violence is infinitely worse than even the most offensive speech.
- dogleash 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but I don't think Twitch considers art a factor in deciding what they want on-platform. Their actions communicate that the platform is meant for game grinding, light entertainment, and softcore porn.
- btown 4y ago
  Intent matters, and there are a lot of people who would say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate. A temporary ban while there is ambiguity about the intent is not unreasonable. But Twitch should be criticized if it persists in the ban after it discovers, as it should have by now, that it was not the intention of this channel's creators, and that the channel's creators are working in good faith to prevent anything that could be construed as normalizing hate in the future.
  - jimmaswell 4y ago
    > say the exact words that the AI said, not with the intention to provoke thought but with the intention to normalize hate The "but nobody is laughing" part would run counter to this. The premise of the whole joke is that the referenced jokes aren't funny.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Yeah, but it’s that weird “I was only kidding, can’t you take a joke” space. Like everyone agrees that shouting racial slurs is bad behavior, but does the characterization change if you then say “see, nobody approved”?
      - btown 4y ago
        And it's not far from the "can't you take a joke" space to the "I'm making fun of how woke the audience has become" space. And heaven knows there's plenty of training data on the web to train an AI to mimic and normalize the latter!
- brookst 4y ago
  So the homeless guy yelling racial slurs at non-white drivers every day on my way to work is an artist? I guess I hadn’t thought about it that way.
gandalfgreybeer 4y ago
My stand with most (not all) things like this is that intent matters; there are a lot of things (especially with jokes/comedy) where nuance and discernment are key. I disagree with your draconian approach (but I understand where it’s coming from) because I do not think that issues like these should be just swept under the rug.
- retrac 4y ago
  > intent matters Ironically, machines autogenerating Seinfeld-like scripts literally cannot have intent. We can go a step back to the intent of the creators of the system. I assume the creators did not intend to auto-generate distasteful and/or bigoted jokes. But it's Seinfeld-like. And it seems if it's supposed to generate bad jokes eventually it'll make some mean jokes. It's something of an interesting thought experiment about intent vs. effect with publication of speech. All effect, no intent. Prima facie, I can see the logic in treating the operator of the AI legally/socially responsible in the same way as if they had published the material themselves. If you unleash a bot that e.g. goes around writing defamatory book reviews, you should be liable for defamation. But I am not sure.
  - brookst 4y ago
    This topic has existed forever. One way society deals with it is the concept of negligence: someone can be responsible for bad outcomes even if they did not intend to create the outcome. We treat negligence differently from malice in both criminal and civil contexts, and even within negligence there are gradations about whether or not a reasonable person would have foreseen the outcome. I think LLMs slot into that model just fine.
- r3trohack3r 4y ago
  > My stand with most (not all) things like this is that intent matters Really curious how this applies to infinite, AI generated, content without oversight. Like, what is the “intent” in this Seinfeld example. Can an LLM have “intent”?
  - 4y ago
oceanplexian 4y ago
Twitch has absolutely no problem with boundary pushing. The ridiculous hot tub streaming drama and the thousands of examples of Twitch preying on children with soft core porn should make that obvious enough. The problem with Twitch isn’t boundaries, but that they can’t have the wrong people pushing boundaries if you know what I mean.

draw_down 4y ago

[dead]

verytrivial 4y ago

The topic is taboo. I cannot be freely discussed on these platforms regardless of the position taken.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Rovoska 4y ago
[flagged]
solbloch 4y ago
Which probably isn't a good strategy to handle taboo topics long-term.
- contravariant 4y ago
  Sure it is, it's been successfully used to oppress people for ages.
- birracerveza 4y ago
  No, I'm sure if we ignore the problem long enough it will go away eventually.
- wtcactus 4y ago
  I'm substantially more worried about returning to a society with openly enforced taboos. I thought we had left that in the past century, but I was clearly too optimistic.
  - nness 4y ago
    When did it stop...
- jollyllama 4y ago
  It's the naive approach. The same approach that gets Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer banned even though they were very egalitarian for the time.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

rom-antics 4y ago

I saw it as a joke about an 80s/90s comedian being dropped into the 21st century and bombing a set trying to use old material. It's not a bad premise for a joke and could probably even work IRL if you polish it up. It's too bad they mentioned the T-word though, I guess you're not allowed to say that anymore even in passing.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Would hate to hurt the feelings of the mob, and you know how important their feelings are.
- edgyquant 4y ago
  Increasingly less each time something like this happens.
mrguyorama 4y ago
Go watch Eddie Murphy's older standup. It's mostly still funny, but there are definitely jokes that would be booed nowadays. I'm okay with that though, because those jokes should have been booed back then honestly.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jmull 4y ago

I don't see how including a comment that the offensive jokes aren't funny make them less offensive. As if anything is innocuous if couched like "Here are some jokes I would tell except they aren't funny: (a series of offensive jokes)"

hot_gril 4y ago

It's here, btw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qxcouuH3u0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qxcouuH3u0 Pet peeve of mine is when 20 sources report on something without the original material.

hot_gril 4y ago
Not anymore: "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on hate speech. Learn more about combating hate speech in your country."