Rise of #MeTooBots: scientists develop AI to detect harassment in emails

[Boiler 46,399]

Artificial intelligence programmers are developing bots that can identify digital bullying and sexual harassment.

Known as “#MeTooBots” after the high-profile movement that arose after allegations against the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, the bots can monitor and flag communications between colleagues and are being introduced by companies around the world.

Bot-makers say it is not easy to teach computers what harassment looks like, with its linguistic subtleties and grey lines.

Jay Leib, the chief executive of the Chicago-based AI firm NexLP, said: “I wasn’t aware of all the forms of harassment. I thought it was just talking dirty. It comes in so many different ways. It might be 15 messages … it could be racy photos.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/03/metoobots-scientists-develop-ai-detect-harassment

 

So they created a situation where men do not want to have meeting with women and now want to add emails to the list.

[Dashinka 24,993]

So VJ will soon have ModBots?

Edited January 3, 2020 by Bill & Katya

[Boiler 46,399]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So VJ will soon have ModBots?

I have had my suspicions for some time as I think we already do.

[Dashinka 24,993]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have had my suspicions for some time as I think we already do.

Yes, I suppose just like it is hard to teach computers what harassment looks like, it is just as challenging to teach a computer how to have a sense of humor.

 

Bot-makers say it is not easy to teach computers what harassment looks like, with its linguistic subtleties and grey lines.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

16 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes, I suppose just like it is hard to teach computers what harassment looks like, it is just as challenging to teach a computer how to have a sense of humor.

 

Bot-makers say it is not easy to teach computers what harassment looks like, with its linguistic subtleties and grey lines.

It's a facade that anyone market "bots" or "AI" as some sort of unbiased mechanism, they are literally programmed with algorithmic biases. 

 

But we effectively have social engineers trying to dehumanize people with this nanny construct. 

[Boiler 46,399]

Ethical veganism is philosophical belief, tribunal rules - this was from today in the UK, so presumably the Bots will need to be reprogrammed to recognise this new form of hate speech.

 

Mind you also presumably means Ethical non veganism is also an ethical belief?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,394]

38 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I have had my suspicions for some time as I think we already do.

A bot could make better jokes

[Boiler 46,399]

4 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

A bot could make better jokes

If you have an Alexa they seem to be on the same level.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

If you have an Alexa they seem to be on the same level.

Hey Google, tell me a joke about Alexa

 

😍

[laylalex 7,300]

So basically it's an immature technology that firms in sectors that have suffered from institutional sexism are using because (1) they're lazy (2) they're more worried about litigation than really getting at the root of sexism in their workplaces and (3) it's easier to throw money at a problem than to actually figure out how to solve it productively and with nuance.

 

On the other hand, nowhere did this article say that the software was judge, jury and executioner. 

[Boiler 46,399]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

So basically it's an immature technology that firms in sectors that have suffered from institutional sexism are using because (1) they're lazy (2) they're more worried about litigation than really getting at the root of sexism in their workplaces and (3) it's easier to throw money at a problem than to actually figure out how to solve it productively and with nuance.

 

On the other hand, nowhere did this article say that the software was judge, jury and executioner. 

I think it is all forms of harassment. Of course first you need to define harassment and the problem I see with all of this sort of thing is that it is subjective.There is no realistic way you can measure it and there are provbably as many definitions as there are people.

 

So you end up in a Big Brother situation where those in power decide, and of course as we have seen so many times being accused is all it takes. 

[laylalex 7,300]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

I think it is all forms of harassment. Of course first you need to define harassment and the problem I see with all of this sort of thing is that it is subjective.There is no realistic way you can measure it and there are provbably as many definitions as there are people.

 

So you end up in a Big Brother situation where those in power decide, and of course as we have seen so many times being accused is all it takes. 

Fair enough -- I focused on the "me too" aspect of it. And yes, it is subjective, but ultimately how can an objective standard be created without the use of the most subjective of all standards -- the thoughts of the humans that create it? Consensus is certainly one way of reaching something approaching objectivity, but ultimately an "objective" standard in most of life is mooshy, nuanced, and weird because most of life isn't binary -- good or bad, dark or light, up or down. There are few absolutes, but to order life properly we need to construct guidelines. Is it better to have no guidelines of acceptable workplace behavior simply because there are so many definitions?

 

And ultimately these are private firms and companies deciding to adopt these standards, and as such people within them have to understand what they are doing when they choose to join them. It's fine to think "oh, it will never happen to me" but the reality is yes, sometimes people are falsely accused of misconduct. Employees will need to decide for themselves if they wish to be involved with a company that thinks this is okay. 

[Boiler 46,399]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Fair enough -- I focused on the "me too" aspect of it. And yes, it is subjective, but ultimately how can an objective standard be created without the use of the most subjective of all standards -- the thoughts of the humans that create it? Consensus is certainly one way of reaching something approaching objectivity, but ultimately an "objective" standard in most of life is mooshy, nuanced, and weird because most of life isn't binary -- good or bad, dark or light, up or down. There are few absolutes, but to order life properly we need to construct guidelines. Is it better to have no guidelines of acceptable workplace behavior simply because there are so many definitions?

 

And ultimately these are private firms and companies deciding to adopt these standards, and as such people within them have to understand what they are doing when they choose to join them. It's fine to think "oh, it will never happen to me" but the reality is yes, sometimes people are falsely accused of misconduct. Employees will need to decide for themselves if they wish to be involved with a company that thinks this is okay. 

There always have been social guidelines, and I sort of look on this as an amused spectator having worked in major Corporate and being well aware of what can happen. Well I still have some connection in that area but I am so remote that they forget about me.

 

When I look at all this I wonder where it will end, look at the progression, look at the ability to monitor. So they are going to monitor your emails, wonder if somebody will have the bright idea to go back through all your past emails. So how long have we used emails, must be 30 years for many, so we go back and asses all those from a current standard? Now I am well aware and you are probably as well that what is perfectly acceptable turn of phrase in the US would not be in the UK and vice versa. I am sure that goes around the world, well I know there are Canadian terms I recognised that baffled somebody in the US.

 

There is a cruse line advertising on the TV using White Rabbit as the music,  made me think of all the banned records over the years, there was a Boy Band called the Osmonds going back into the 70's, usual 14 year old girl followers. Well they had a record called Crazy Horses, banned in France and South Africa as they understood it to refer to Heroin?

 

But then Walk on the Wild Side got past the BBC. Amusingly now considered Transphobic!

 

 

 

 

 

[laylalex 7,300]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

But then Walk on the Wild Side got past the BBC. Amusingly now considered Transphobic!

I have an aunt who's considerably younger than my mom and dad, only about fifteen years older than me, and she was (is) really into that 80s/90s "college rock" scene at the time. She told me she never fails to be shocked when she hears something like Red Hot Chili Peppers' Under the Bridge or the Smiths' Hand in Glove on the supermarket in-store music system -- like, do you KNOW what these songs are about? I guess songs and other culture lose their ability to shock over time, just as they can gain additional shock value over time. There's been a lot of discussion over whether or not it is okay to still like Gauguin in the age of #metoo. It's a good conversation to have, I think, but I think when it comes to art of any stripe we need to understand taste is ultimately subjective, and for some an artist's problematic life and outlook may not be enough to end an appreciation for their art. Michael Jackson comes to mind, of course.

[Boiler 46,399]

Well at one time the Osmonds and the Jacksons were head to head 

 

Talking of which your Aunt probably remembers this: