7 ms·
I know why they did it, because its the lowest common denominator for celeb gossip. However its shit for science, overtly paedophilic, and the only western new
by KaiserPro 11y ago
I know why they did it, because its the lowest common denominator for celeb gossip.
However its shit for science, overtly paedophilic, and the only western news sit that seems to have a special section devoted to curating and promoting ISIS propaganda.
Why is it bad? because if you are looking for facts, the daily mail is a bad source.
If you are looking for natural language, its a good source, however its full of nuanced racism, sexism, classism & basically everything else thats wrong with britian.
It'll be good at describing house prices though.
- raverbashing 11y agoYou're missing a /s at the end, hopefully
- talideon 11y agoI'm afraid not. The Daily Mail is an awful rag. One of its nicknames is "The Daily Hate".
- afandian 11y agoNo, that's a fairly accurate description of the paper. I won't repeat the list, but if you take a look at it the hatred of women, minorities etc really shines through. And a bizarre fanatical interest in house prices and which social group is affecting them.
- raverbashing 11y agoI'm not disagreeing with you with this description of the Daily Mail. But it is irrelevant to the work DeepMind is doing
- afandian 11y agoI was just responding to your suggestion that the GP should might have been sarcastic. Anyway, this is the frontiers of large-scale natural language processing. Who knows what latent features it might pick up? I don't know about the techniques in use, but it's conceivable for a present or future system to encode the biases represented in its corpus.
- KaiserPro 11y agonot really, its using this corpus to infer meaning to phrases. (at the very least) So the bias it exhibits in language towards women, immigrants and the poor, will be baked into the way it understands language.
- mattnewport 11y agoOvertly paedophilic? It's been a while since I lived in the UK and I never read the Mail when I did but this particular accusation is new to me. I've heard most of the others levelled at it before but what's the story behind that one? If anything I'd have associated them with Brass Eye style "paedophiles under the bed" paranoia (though in light of revelations of the last few years maybe that wasn't so unjustified).
- EliRivers 11y agoThe Daily Mail uses a set of code phrases to indicate to its readers when underage girls can be viewed as something to have sex with. Here are a few links. http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-mail-turns-the-creepiness-up-a-notch.html http://www.themediablog.co.uk/the-media-blog/2013/01/daily-m... http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-internet-with-the-daily-mail http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/all-grown-up-sexing-up-the-in... http://www.newstatesman.com/martin-robbins/2012/06/sex-children-and-mail-online http://www.newstatesman.com/martin-robbins/2012/06/sex-child...
- afandian 11y agoEDIT: this was the Daily Star not the Daily Mail. This is the Daily Mail though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzgDBumCr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKzgDBumCr0 That was one of the great ironies of the Brass Eye special. One one page of the Daily Star a criticism of the episode. On the other page a sexualised picture of a child. http://www.anorak.co.uk/303258/news/leveson-inquiry-charlotte-churchs-15-year-old-breasts-and-chris-jefferies-hair.html/ http://www.anorak.co.uk/303258/news/leveson-inquiry-charlott... There's tonnes of stuff like this. They're quite open about it.