Google Docs' New Inclusive Warnings Feature

[nepeta]

A new algorithm in the process of being rolled
out in Google Docs suggest different edits for the user, including more 'inclusive' word choices. An example:

Social editor Emily Lipstein typed “Motherboard” (as in, the name of this website) into a document and Google popped up to tell her she was being insensitive: “Inclusive warning. Some of these words may not be inclusive to all readers. Consider using different words.”

Would the algorithm regard a 'birthing body' as inclusive enough?

"A transcribed interview of neo-Nazi and former Klan leader David Duke—in which he uses the N-word and talks about hunting Black people—gets no notes. Radical feminist Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto gets more edits than Duke’s tirade; she should use “police officers” instead of “policemen,” Google helpfully notes. Even Jesus (or at least the translators responsible for the King James Bible) doesn’t get off easily—rather than talking about God’s “wonderful” works in the Sermon on the Mount, Google’s robot asserts, He should have used the words “great,” “marvelous,” or “lovely.”"

Looool

I may sound tin foil hattish but I'm quite wary of google systems. This makes me more so.

It seems to me they've somehow got into schools where data must be being scraped at some level, as well as some workplaces. I dislike the amount you cede to google. Even thinking can effectively be outsourced to it. You have to go through and switch off loads of features in order not to be ruled by it.

My first thought was also schools. I would hope this facility can be disabled otherwise English and History homework could prove ‘interesting’. Now literally policing people’s words whilst using applications they or institutions pay for.

This also could hasten the erasure of words uses in British lexicon in favour of American. My question is, are there algorithms, which monitor and feedback whether or not the word was replaced by the user? I presume so. How else would this program work?

And if there is feedback, monitoring can take place. Monitoring can be used for nefarious reasons and by governments. Sounds rather big brother and pretty sinister to me.

That doesn't look at all tinfoil hattish to me ResisterRex. Much of the learning about the world done by humanity necessarily involves Google and Google are now determining what words and types of thinking involving those words are acceptable in accessing that learning.

The huge problem heading towards us at speed is that Google have a highly politicised and ideological agenda. It is genuinely scary.

This is now also in the Telegraph:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/23/big-brother-sorry-big-person-correcting-google/

"Among the words it objects to are "landlord" - which Google says “may not be inclusive to all readers” and should be changed to “property owner” or “proprietor” - and "mankind", which it wants changed to “humankind”.
The tool suggests more gender-inclusive phrasing, such as changing “policemen” to “police officers”, and replacing “housewife” with “stay-at-home-spouse”.
But it also objects to the technical term "motherboard" - used for a printed circuit board containing the principal components of a computer or other device.
If a writer uses these and other terms a message pops up stating “Inclusive warning. Some of these words may not be inclusive to all readers. Consider using different words.”"
Inclusive warning?! This seems like a bit of a fail:

"Surprisingly, a transcribed interview of the neo-Nazi and former Klu Klux Klan leader David Duke - in which he uses offensive racial slurs and talks about hunting black people - prompted no warnings when it was entered into a Google docs programme that included the function.
But at the same time it suggested that President John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address should say “for all humankind” instead of the original phrase “for all mankind”."

This was discussed on this podcast yesterday. I think it was Katie Herzog who said that she thinks it'll get ditched before rollout because of the negative response from the various people who have accessed it for promotion/testing

[Honestly with Bari Weiss] TGIF! Libs of TikTok, CNN+ and Much More #honestlyWithBariWeiss
podcastaddict.com/episode/138682271 via @PodcastAddict

Sinister as fuck.

I wonder if Google would have many obstacles to knowing our usenames and our real identify on here. Maybe they do as a matter of course.

If they get upset at the thought of a motherboard, their tiny brains will explode when they see the phrase male/ female adapters and see why that terminology was chosen.
Presumably the name of the computer system in Alien will have to change from MOTHER to birthing parent.

I wonder if Julian Vigo’s tongue in cheek “front noodlers” for the penis-havers would evade the google censorship algorithm.

Yep.

They got to Microsoft, too:

twitter.com/thinking_humans/status/1518962057986543616

"Anyone else ever see this? MicrosoftWord flags "biologically female" "Inclusiveness: It's best to avoid language that implies gender bias" and suggests "assigned female at birth" or "designated female at birrth?
@HJoyceGender

@helenstaniland

@bindelj

@Transgendertrd"

Bumping this thread as there's a Big Tech story in the Mail today:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10902459/Mail-audit-reveals-web-searches-Boris-Johnson-results-news-sites-hostile-him.html

"The Daily Mail looked at which outlets’ articles were returned in last week’s top 11 most searched terms about Boris Johnson.
The study found that The Guardian came up 38 times in the search results and The Independent was cited 14 times. Yet the Daily Telegraph came up just four times, the Daily Express three times and MailOnline twice.
BBC News, which has been accused by some Conservatives of anti-Johnson bias, came up 24 times, along with nine further results for other BBC outlets."

The topic as the chosen example is Boris. IIRC when the GRA consultation was happening, the first results on Google were not the legislation or the consultation but something else (a lobby group..?). Also I think there was a proforma of how to respond in favour of self-ID. But not the law or the consultation as the top results.