I'll bite.

Why?

Edit: and how? Specific examples please

Is the leftist in the picture?

I agree and to expand the same point. Even if the llm didn't do it, it's entirely plausible the LLM recommended it and the dev just drank that coolaid

Now, that's a fine hair to be splitting.

Empire fucking booked it to steam and has been playing it for the past 10 hours, for sure.

Misgendering on purpose, hate speech. "On purpose" might be a fuzzy term, but patterns of behaviour will usually make it obvious. Burning a flag, free speech. Calling for death of Elon Musk, hate speech. Calling him out on his bullshit, free speech.

Not actually that hard.

100 people in the first study, and the authors specifically indicate that the high quality results are dependent on adequate input by the resident physicians. When the diagnosis was obtained by self reporting, accuracy dropped to 50%.

So I do not believe LLMs are able to replace doctors.

I'd be willing to bet that it's impossible it could have done it any other way.

This is not how proof by contradiction works. And I'm not versed enough in the subject of proofs to explain how.

It's not the subjective experience of the offended what makes it hate speech, but the perceived intention of the offender.

You haven't answered any of my questions friend.

(8 not an actual complain, just wanted to put the prediction out there before an actual explanation comes up.

But I've got a decent local jellyfin/sonarr/bazarr setup already, the high seas are looking great. Wish I could pay something directly to the animator/author/etc though.

Not imposible if you're wrong. Which you are.

What about demeaning others is subjective? Do you fear that victimhood will be wielded as a weapon? I believe a good percentage of cases of hate speech are very obvious, and the rest should be handled by good old societal norms and shaming.

Do you feel bad when others correct you?

I'll grant that there's no acceptable way to programmatically evaluate some text and infer from the text alone if it's hate speech.

That's why I stick to a manual process to evaluate. For example, if enough people report you for misgendering others, and you do not adjust your behaviour it eventuallt becomes hate speech. But a human has to go and analyze this, it is difficult, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

But your argument is that it's impossible, and I just illustrated that it isn't impossible. I do agree that it's hard. But that's just life for you. Nuance takes time and effort, as most worthwhile things do.

I agree with your point about the difficulty of designing a good system for millions of humans to play well together.

I just have a small nitpick. People do not place money over other people, they place their own needs and wants over other people, money is just one tool for it.

Whichever ideal system we could design would need to take that into consideration. And sociopaths, which is a whole other thing.