Google is coming in for sharp criticism after video went viral of the Google Nest assistant refusing to answer basic questions about the Holocaust — but having no problem answer questions about the Nakba.

    • yildolw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you train your large language model on all the internet’s bullshit and don’t want bullshit to come out, there’s not a lot of good options. Garbage in, garbage out

        • Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you should say that instead of a reductive “don’t censor”. Censorship is important because you want to avoid false and harmful statements.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Definition:

                objectionable: undesirable, offensive

                Yes, false information is technically undesirable, but that’s not really what that word is trying to convey. The goal should be accurate information, not agreeable information. If the truth is objectionable/offensive, it should still be easily findable.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pity we’ve spent the past generation or so destroying critical thinking skills and factchecks

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, I think the solution is simpler: multiple competing algorithms. Gaming one system is pretty easy, gaming 5 isn’t. So if a search company wants to always have the top results, they need to swap between a handful of good search algorithms to keep SEO hunters at bay.

        Hiring experts is certainly a good idea, but due to the sheer size of the internet, it’s not going to be feasible.

        As for the original discussion about censorship in search, I take it to mean intentional hiding or demotion of relevant results due to the content of those results. SEO spam isn’t relevant because it’s not what the customer is likely wanting, so hiding/demoting it doesn’t count as censorship imo.

      • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Censorship is simply intentionally limiting the information that someone else has available to them, and it is bad. Let them curate their own information, that’s fine, but they should have choice over what they see.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ideally the user would be in complete control of what gets censored for them. The service should simply flag content by category and the user could selectively show/hide content.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Individual instances can and do but decentralization means everyone can spin one up with your own rules.

        I bet if you looked around there be plenty of lawless absolutist instances that allow all manners of free speech but non will adhere exactly to your own moral ideals besides the one you made yourself.

  • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe it’s regional or something. I’m in Sweden and my nest have no problems answering questions about the holocaust and will happily quote Wikipedia for anything you ask