Thread 3: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of linguistic transphobia on Mumsnet

[VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia]

In which we continue to discuss the Aston scrapists.

• The Site Stuff thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/sitestuff/5057903-mumsnet-corpus
• FWR thread #1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5057460-a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet
• FWR thread #2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5060410-thread-2-a-corpus-assisted-discourse-analysis-of-linguistic-transphobia-on-mumsnet

Deleted for breaking talk guidelines I mean. Suspect MNHQ would have been erring on the side of caution.

There's an update from Justine on the Corpus 2 thread.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/5072884-corpus-2?reply=135821583

That is singularly underwhelming.

They seem to be taking a bullish, unrepentant tone.

Am not surprised.

But realise that in some foolish, unlike me optimistic way, I had hoped they would review how they work. They could have conceded there were issues, and as a result of MNHQ contacting them, they have decided they will in future be much clearer about how they collect data, and make it prominent of their website, not as a footnote on a document.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/sep/28/mumsnet-ai-google-openai-publishing-copyright

No mention of Aston in here.

'There is nothing wrong with mining content for data, but it has to be properly regulated and creators must be compensated'

Ooh, are we going to get paid?

I'd like to think a percentage of any payment would be used for the good of MN users.

Perhaps MN might fund information gathering and focus groups from its members in order to be a stakeholder to relevant consultations about maternal and neonatal health, women's health, mental health etc.

Here's your payment. You even get a Mumsnet mug!

I'd never noticed it was the MN logo on the mug. I absently thought it was a blue flower 🤯

Cold hard cash would be good.

Or at least making all the premium features free ? Nah… cold hard cash.

That unfortunately makes it sound as if it's all about paying Mumsnet and to hell with the consequences if people get doxxed in the process.

Pretty much the deal that Reddit made, I think.

It must potentially be a huge money-maker.

I quite like the idea of AI collating the collective wisdom of mumsnet to become a one stop shop for women trying to leave abusive men, mothers worried about children being transed at school, and .. !!

" ... We used it at Mumsnet to build MumsGPT, which uncovers and summarises what parents are thinking ... "

Is this news? Not sure I’ve seen this posted.

https://nitter.poast.org/AIFL_Aston/status/1837237551830073629#m

Congratulations to AIFL’s Eden Palmer, Lauren Morgan, and Jenna Elliott for passing their Qualifying Reports and becoming fully-fledged PhD researchers. All 3 demonstrated excellent progress over their first year, and we’re excited to see how the projects unfold!

https://nitter.poast.org/AIFL_Aston/status/1837238659625402761#m

Eden’s work looks at the nature and development of transphobic language online, using corpus assisted critical discourse analysis to unpick implicitly discriminatory discourse.

Sep 20, 2024 · 9:13 PM UTC

I have always thought it was weed. Which was somewhat perplexing…

WomanXX - so, it looks like they're continuing unabated.

That’s how I read it too Rethinking

Nicci has also been promoted 🤦‍♀️

Well if Mumsnet is suing here's hoping that adds grist to their mill. Says a lot about how genuine any apology was.

Honestly, same.

Yes, maybe. The problem for me ethically remains that MN talk goes back a couple of decades when posters had no idea AI would become a thing and therefore could not conceptualise this is how the details they posted about their abusive relationships, DC, infertility, bereavements etc could or would be used in this way. People post in fairly vulnerable situations looking for support and effectively, the argument is about who monetises it.

Not just me, then! 😄

Comprehension skills used to be taught in infant school but seems to have increasingly become a lost art. Including amongst those who inhabit the spheres of HE. Alas, Gen AI will further erode that tenuous hold on any ability to comprehend the arguments and points being made by others.

Combining those two points, I don’t hold out much hope for AIFL developing the necessary comprehension skills viz a viz the rather legitimate concerns expressed on FWR. Transparency doesn’t seem that important either, as Eden never felt comfortable with explaining their analysis nor their conclusion drawn from their ‘findings’.

I think Eden could have written her PhD in crayon and on cardboard and it would have passed.

I don’t hold out much hope for AIFL developing the necessary comprehension skills viz a viz the rather legitimate concerns expressed on FWR. Transparency doesn’t seem that important either,

I'm likewise concerned about the general level of comprehension that is needed for critical thinking. AIFL's stance overlaps with the (to me) astonishing news that the civil servants seem to be oblivious to the bias of the report that they cite uncritically.

Labour used “economically illiterate” analysis paid for by water companies in order to argue against the nationalisation of the sector, the Guardian can reveal.
In an official letter recently sent to anti-sewage groups, civil servants cited a paper by the Social Market Foundation as a reason to avoid nationalisation as part of its review of the sector. The report from 2018 was commissioned by United Utilities, Anglian Water, Severn Trent and South West Water.
…
Sir Dieter Helm, a leading economist, called the analysis “economically illiterate”.
Moody’s rating agency has disputed this figure and estimated that nationalisation could actually cost £14.5bn – a fraction of the analysis amount.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/sep/29/labour-water-industry-analysis-argue-against-nationalisation