I don't think the particular issue is with deciding what
hate is. Your example said that the AI would understand all of those as hate, and I think it would be correct. The issue is that humans have this idea that there are justified forms of hate, and whether that hate is considered justified depends on the time and place in history, as such, it is necessary to also have a lot of seemingly irrelevant data to make the decision.
This ties in quite well to the idea that a society can only be understood through an analysis of its history - that is, what has happened in order to lead it up until this point, and that men are largely (though as Marx notes not completely) products of their time; this view is known as historicism.
I see that science-types (my apologies if this is offensive to some) tend to see society as merely thousands of one-off interactions between people, occuring here and there, the only difference being what each individual in the transaction brings to the table. I think that in this context of hate especially, this is too reductionist and insufficient.
Similarly, what ought to be tolerated in a society? Should intolerance, which threatens to bring down the tolerant society, be tolerated? How about the subversive element which attempts to move for the liberation of peoples? Arguably a democracy should have a right to subvert itself, if the power is truly vested in the people. As Marcuse said, through mass media the expression of this subversive element is being blocked, and it may require apparently un-democratic means to open.
This ties in quite well to the idea that a society can only be understood through an analysis of its history - that is, what has happened in order to lead it up until this point, and that men are largely (though as Marx notes not completely) products of their time; this view is known as historicism.
I see that science-types (my apologies if this is offensive to some) tend to see society as merely thousands of one-off interactions between people, occuring here and there, the only difference being what each individual in the transaction brings to the table. I think that in this context of hate especially, this is too reductionist and insufficient.
Similarly, what ought to be tolerated in a society? Should intolerance, which threatens to bring down the tolerant society, be tolerated? How about the subversive element which attempts to move for the liberation of peoples? Arguably a democracy should have a right to subvert itself, if the power is truly vested in the people. As Marcuse said, through mass media the expression of this subversive element is being blocked, and it may require apparently un-democratic means to open.