Double standard, or legitimate difference? Maybe Trump empirically sucks more?
(This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)
(This is the sort of debate I really don't think tooling can fix.)
"Dogwhistle
The phrase "Obama sucks" can be interpreted as more than just a simple critique of a political figure; it has been used to express racist sentiments by implying that a Black president is less capable or worthy of respect. This reinforces harmful stereotypes and can contribute to a broader culture of disrespect and division."
Avoiding that kind of comment is exactly what we are trying to do, actually.
Nothing in "Obama sucks" implied any kind of racism. If it's so baked in that with a simple phrase like that it reaches for dogwhistles, how can anyone trust the objectivity of this?
Very sensitive topic. We'll think hard on how to handle things like that.
A tool like this COULD work, but I think the issue with this one is that it's built on top of an existing LLM with heaps of internet debate and their underlying ideals and what is and isn't acceptable baked in.
What a tool like this needs is heaps of honestly / fairly judged comments and feedback, and an extensive test suite that ensures neutrality by, for example, taking the same comment and like in this case changing names around - if it treats both sides the same then it passes.