Azaran on 6/2/2023 at 18:59

---

I would have loved to see the chat stream at that moment.
I'm sure people started mass reporting it

Azaran on 6/2/2023 at 20:21

---

Yeah I can imagine the articles. "Why Twitch has a hate speech problem"

Cipheron on 8/2/2023 at 09:40

---

AI causing another Great Depression seems like kind of a dramatic claim.

One of the issues I would take with that, is to compare it to non-AI examples where something became more efficient. For example, consider that adding a public transport system requires many less drivers than relying on taxi drivers. Overall, the existence of public transport spurs an increased amount of commerce, even though it directly put an number of people out of work. In the past, general efficiency and productivity improvements have been connected with increased standard of living, not decreased.

Whichever services end up being hooked up to AI, those services will get cheaper, leaving more money to be spent on other things. So I think you'll see growth in other areas, as a result of the changes, in ways that are indirectly affected.

As an idea, think about the government sector, which is very large. Maybe AI will reduce the need for paper-pushers, making things more efficient, and also reduce the amount of mistakes that are made. So those jobs won't exist any more. However, why not then use the saved money to hire and train more teachers, nurses, community services, etc?

Another thing is look at the amount of data computers process. It's a LOT more than could ever have been processed by hand. So the invention of computers didn't put people out of work, even though the computers are doing a lot of work which could, in theory, have been done by hand. They already automated the hell out of every task we could conceivably get computers to do, and yet that still didn't kill employment.

While computers took over some human tasks, most of the work done by computers wasn't actually ever done by humans, because it wouldn't have been cost-effective. AI is basically going to be the same - AI will take over some tasks humans are doing now, but will also create vastly more tasks for us to get them to do, that we didn't even know we wanted to do, because the cost would currently be prohibitive.

demagogue on 8/2/2023 at 16:33

---

In the big picture, I have to imagine Twitch's rules were constructed in the context of largely white male 13 year old rage gamers constantly shouting out epithets for gays, women, sex, and genetic disorders (probably not racial?) largely towards other 13 year old rage gamers just like them, suddenly given a public airing on Twitch.

Twitch just wanted to stop the torrent of rage slurs. The motivation wasn't really the key factor; the terms themselves were. I can sympathize with their position anyway. You can't have too much nuance when you're dealing with gamers as a category. =/

Nevermind the Seinfeld spoof wasn't even a game -- although that's part of the problem right there. Twitch wasn't really the right platform for them to begin with. But the whole idea of interactive works that aren't "games" is pushing into new genre territory, so there isn't any better platform. So it goes.

demagogue on 8/2/2023 at 21:06

---

I won't deny that. I've watched multiplayer FPS videos full of screaming of slurs, some coordinating whatever they were doing with a lot of joking around, and a lot of Twitch streams that were usually people pretty chill talking with Chat about what they're doing. There's a mix of cultures, although Twitch's thinking may be as subject to stereotypes and really outdated as anybody's. Twitch came around a few years just before Gamergate, when that culture was maybe more hardcore than it is now, at least as a self-identity projection, people that wanted to project in-your-faceness that made gamergate, and things like it, a thing that was at least being labeled and reported on to begin with.

I guess I was thinking in terms of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil", as in what plays better or worse to public airing, or what keeps them out of the news, never mind its scale per se.

Anyway it's an empirical question, so asking Twitch management themselves what they were thinking is the way to go, and I don't have any high confidence about my first impression.

I still think that they don't want to have too much nuance, but that's also because I'm not just thinking about gamers, but the culture that mainstream games play to in their design and marketing, which are pretty twitch-centric and not all that nuanced. (I'll grant I'm probably getting old and crotchety and want to outsize the indie games I like by downsizing the mainstream games that rub me the wrong way.)