Perhaps the author does not understand the logistical nightmare of having human moderators manually approve all content.
Further, the fact that YouTube, Facebook, et al. Have failed to police content to the author's satisfaction is not indicative of a failure in AI - especially when these corporations are effectively incentivized by view counts and advertisement not to remove these videos.
In short, YouTube's failure is not a valid indicator of the effecticeness of AI in general.
They are words. Not bullets, not fists, not gropes. And the fact that there is such a movement to sensationalize what should be harmless to any well adjusted person only encourages the trolls.
This is fundamentally different from in person harassment or bullying. These things dont happen in every round, far from it, and there is nothing stopping people from muting microphones and/or leaving toxic games.
There is no line to be drawn here. Offense is taken, not given. The first line of defense should be to teach people to ignore trolls, as this is the only realistic way to get rid of them. You can't go around arresting 10 year olds for whatever you happen to consider offensive.
>next Harvey Weinstien or even Ted Bundy
That is some extreme paranoia. People online say these things fundamentally because they know that others will find them unacceptable. By crying out over something so innocuous, you encourage the behavior.
Edit: I'd also like to add, we are complaining about bad words in games that simulate killing, murder, and war. Is that consistent, or rational?
Why does HN allow articles like this to be posted if it suppresses any arguments against their validity or premise?
This entire topic is flamebait, except only critical arguments are punished.
This is dangerous, because it creates a false appearance of consensus. Further, without allowing for healthy skepticism, we practice something more akin to religion than science.
Further, the fact that YouTube, Facebook, et al. Have failed to police content to the author's satisfaction is not indicative of a failure in AI - especially when these corporations are effectively incentivized by view counts and advertisement not to remove these videos.
In short, YouTube's failure is not a valid indicator of the effecticeness of AI in general.