I understand this topic brings out the worst in some users, but the governing of AI bias is an important issue that is on topic for HN. I don't know what the purpose of this site is if topics like this always get flagged killed within minutes.
I completely agree. Hopefully it was just due to how quickly it got flagged and mods correct this. It's relevant in at least 2 ways to HN (AI governance, Meta/large tech corps)
It doesn't matter if mods approve it later. By the time they do, the momentum is killed and it won't show up for anyone. They don't resume the upvote momentum the post had at the time of being flagged off. The time after that is counted against it even though no one will see it to consider upvoting meanwhile.
The mod’s have shown time and time again that they think this is exactly how things should work and that if you think there’s any kind of effort by groups of people to flag things on ideological grounds than you are just paranoid.
I simply cannot get myself to a point where they sincerely believe that but they keep saying the same nonsense again and again.
Antipatterns of Free speech is allowed so long as it benefits my side. and Topic X always leads to Y, so you can't talk about it.
If someone were looking for rational, robust debate on the most pressing and critical topics, this (and most online forums) historically haven't been the venue for that.
Call in to C-SPAN or Thom Hartmann Monday to Friday for that. ;@)
The fuck? I can’t imagine anyone at Meta, a company full of smart people in the bay area, actually wanted to work with people like that?
Just how intertwined those corporations are with the government? Between this and the sudden shift against DEI policies even in companies who are staunch supporters of diversity I wonder what kinda pressure the gov is applying
They work under Zuck. They know what content moderation is required and not provided. They're more about "do I have profitable work" than who someone on the business side is. Plenty of Thiel people in the Bay Area.
> I can’t imagine anyone at Meta, a company full of smart people in the bay area, actually wanted to work with people like that?
You mean except their boss which has a long history with having problematic idea and just learned to not say it publicly?
I have been staying away from Meta because I think of Zuck as a dangerous ideologist with money since ~10+ years (through not anit-LBTGQ specific). I'm not surprised at all.
It's important to point out that this appointment is part of the settlement agreement for a defamation case between Meta and Starbuck. With this in mind, one wonders what actual power this position of advisor holds.
Likely because of the polemics of the article and its headline, many people in this thread are misinformed as to what Starbuck's role will be and that this came about as the result of a settlement.
There is also the joint statement posted by Joel Kaplan on X (likely the source for many articles): https://x.com/joel_kaplan/status/1953778908915982793
"Building on that work, Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to continue to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias and minimize the risk that the model returns hallucinations in response to user queries."
cuz a certain demographic, that supports the expansion of authoritarian controls over democratic countries in order to get them to comply with a certain "non genocide", was offended by it.
For a more charitable interpretation: the pinknews is a source that regularly produces low quality, poorly fact-checked and polemical content, and is to me on the same level as the daily mail. The article here seems somewhat polemical, and it is difficult to verify if some of the stronger claims made are actually true.
The headline focusses on polemics and omits a detail many people would find quite important: that this was part of a lawsuit settlement. It also decides to use the word "appoint", which has a stronger underlying implication that Starbuck will have a job at / take a significant role in doing this at Meta.
> He and his wife, Landon, produced a documentary together perpetuating the same conspiracy theory spouted by disgraced commentator Alex Jones — that toxic chemicals are causing children to identify as LGBTQ+. Starbuck falsely asserted that exposure to the pesticide atrazine turned amphibians "gay,” prompting male frogs to mate — a claim that has been repeatedly debunked.
> Starbuck has also claimed that displaying pride flags is “grooming and indoctrination," and supported the unsubstantiated notion that transgender people transition to assault women in public bathrooms (transgender people are far more likely to be the victims of violent assaults.)
>Robby Starbuck, a former music video director turned failed congressional candidate and MAGA Republican pundit, is the face of the right’s anti-DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) movement in its self-imposed ‘War on Woke’.
Trillion to one odds that "bias advisor" will be his third career failure. What's he going to do, look at every token? Rubber stamp the RL-HF?
Just to be clear you're literally repeating a conspiracy theory. The thing you described effectively does not happen. We can talk about whether it should be allowed to happen, but at present it doesn't. Policies followed by most medical professionals simply don't allow it.
reply