It'd be far more efficient to simply pay people to do the work in the first place than to pay for "AI" to do the work and also paying people to check it.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Humans will have to verify, of course. "AI" is just a really fast sort. This is fine for that with human annotators. Could have just saved a bunch of money by grepping the fucking text for keywords though.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 10 months ago

Precisely.

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Surely highlighting 5 million out of 24 million is more efficient than checking them all?

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If you don't care about false negatives, maybe.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are only so many historical synonyms for black people, racist language should be searchable with few false negatives

[–] knightly@pawb.social 1 points 10 months ago

No "AI" required~

[–] Lugh@futurology.today 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

false negatives

I don't get your logic here either. A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 10 months ago

A false negative would have zero implications for anyone. It would have no legal standing or relevance.

I don't understand, in what way does allowing a racist deed covenant stand unchallenged have zero implications or relevance?

If it did, then what would be the point of rooting them out in the first place?