Case: Checkmate!

***

Algorithms vs. ‘racist’ games of chess

22-04-2021 112 views 0

Checkmate!

With all its talk of black-on-white war, YouTube’s “hate speech”-filtering AI can’t tell the difference between chess players and violent racists.

It seems to be dangerous to rely completely on algorithms, as YouTube’s oversensitive filters think chess videos are racist. Perhaps leaving robots in charge of the English language isn’t such a good idea.

First, read the full article on rt.com.

Second, watch the video below.

Tags:

citizenship | media wisdom

Share:

Assignments for students

1.1 Define the following keywords:

‘Big Tech’
algorithm
hate speech
artificial intelligence
misinformation
conspiracy theory
harmful speech

1.2 Who is Antonio Radic, a.k.a. ‘Agadmator’?

1.3 What is meant with ‘Silicon Valley’?

1.4 Why was Antonio Radic’ account suspended by YouTube?

1.5 What is Antonio Radic sure about?

1.6 What did researchers at Carnegie Mellon University find out about chess videos and their comments?

1.7 Why was the story of Antonio Radic picked up by mainstream media?

1.8 Where was the game of chess developed?

2.1 Why do YouTube and other online platforms rely more on algorithms than on humans?

2.2 Explain why it is plausible to assume that algorithms designed by Youku and Tudou (Chinese versions of YouTube) will not remove the same content that YouTube removes.

Team up with a fellow student.

3.1 Think about two examples of other sports or professions than chess, where algorithms might lead to the removal of online content. Explain your answers.

3.2 Do you think that online platforms such as YouTube should rely more or less on algorithms? Explain your answer.

3.3 Algorithms are there to stay. Think of a way to make algorithms more ‘just’. Include AT LEAST the following companies / institutions / organizations to your answer: Big Tech, government(s), Department of Justice, United States, European Union.

Recommended by teachers

Brainstorming | Group activity

A clear problem definition marks the starting point.

In each group, one student will note down the reactions, ideas, views, etc. of the others. The various opinions are not dealt with in any depth.
After a while, the group discusses the proposed solutions and picks out the best of these.
The various ideas are grouped conventionally in an easy-to-understand web diagram.

Case method | Cooperative learning

Concrete, realistic situations are individually analysed; afterwards, the resulting vision is presented and discussed in the group.
The individual’s vision is reappraised after seeking additional information. The different visions are selected and appraised.

Group discussion (or problem-solving discussion) | Dialogue

Reflective discussion as part of a group, pooling knowledge/ideas/opinions with the aim of learning from this. A stimulus to creative, problem-solving and evaluative thinking.
Someone (teacher or student in a smaller group) is appointed as moderator. Without impinging on the subject matter, this person guides the discussion through the different phases (defining the problem, defining the scope of the subject, dissecting the problem, seeking solutions, discussing propositions, formulating the conclusion).
Pitfall: students must have sufficient background knowledge.
Variants: one empty chair, carousel discussion, triangular discussion, forum discussion/panel, debate, with or without a role.

Learning discussion (or evaluation or discussion method) | Dialogue

Students learn how to find solutions for themselves (via diagrams, plans, outlines, etc.)
Discussion (individual or as part of a group) about the learning experiences of the student; the teacher acts as moderator and remains in the background. The emphasis is on (learning) how to identify learning moments: what could have been improved and how?

Learning game with alternating groups | Group activity

Small groups of 4 to 5 students, heterogeneously mixed. The students asks questions to test each other.
Afterwards, three students who achieved a similar level sit at a ‘contesting table’. Here, they answer critical questions; correct answers score specific points (the audience can also participate in the decision-making).
The group with the highest number of points wins.

Student-led class discussion | Dialogue

A dialogue which is primarily student-led; this activity is primarily process-oriented.
Ideal for forming a personal vision and learning how to make subtle distinctions. As a rule, students communicate directly with each other; the teacher remains in the background.
Tip? Define the scope of the subject, help students to formulate decisions, conclude with an evaluation.

Comment? Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Alain Roelse

International Business Studies | Editorial member