241–250 of 411 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish “the discourse” would learn to acknowledge the difference between post-genderist ideas, and basic rights for transgender people. The latter is (1) already the law of the land, and (2) not politically controversial: https://www.kff.org/other/press-release/poll-large-majoritie... (“Large majorities of Americans think it should be illegal for either employers or health care providers to discriminate against peopl…
Quoted post unavailable.
Aren't we missing the forest for the trees here? We're zeroing in on how silly is it for copilot to trigger its content filter on the word "gender". To me the real issue is that copilot has a content filter in the first place. It's unwelcome and unnecessary.
There’s a zealous push by a small but extremely vocal fringe to impose their very particular worldview onto emerging AI/ML models like this. They refer to it as “eliminating bias”, but it’s really just an attempt to mold these new technologies into conformance with one very specific set of ideological commitments. Proponents view it as some kind of obvious universal good, and are confused when anyone else is appalled…
So I've just tested it, and I can confirm, yes, copilot refuses to give suggestions related to gender. Now I know a lot of people are calling this absurd, but looking more closely, there are two PR nightmare scenarios. 1. Copilot makes a suggestion that implies gender is binary, a certain community explodes with anger and an entire news hype cycle starts about how Microsoft is enforcing views on gender with code. 2.…
Agreed. The answer is approved by Dave Cheney, he works at GitHub, and if you've ever attended one of his talks it's plain to see he's a very scrupulous person. I also don't think this is an example of Microsoft taking a side; rather I read it as them refusing to bat, which seems fine. What I would've preferred one of these threads to be about is how all of this works. Like, how do they post-hoc filter certain things…
You can't be neutral on a moving train, as they say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
> You're telling me if a short, bald, overweight guy with a beard likes to be referred to as a tall, thin blonde woman with lustrous hair - "we" immediately stop seeing his height, his lack of hair, his girth and his beard? I don't know who that "we" is but that'd require some major training in delusion, Mr. O'Brien. That's straw-man and snark across the board. If that short person wants to be called "she" and to sto…
If it's not relevant, then of course there's no point of pointing that out. But if we are talking about a task that requires visual acuity, and I point out that you seem to have an issue in that department, then you may feel bad, but that doesn't change the facts. And if the task does require knowing that, then your feeling bad does not overcome that. For example, if you need glasses to drive safely, then your driver license should say that, and if you feel bad about it, then you'd feel bad and the license still should say it.
If you are short, and feel bad about it, I wouldn't point it out each five minutes "repeatedly". There's no reason to do that. But if you come to join a basketball team, claiming you are actually gigantic - I'll tell you "dude, sorry, but you're short", and if you feel bad about it, then you feel bad. It's between you and your therapist.
It so happens that humans are sexually dimorphic species, and thus the notion of this is relevant in human cultures (in different ways for different cultures, of course). Thus if a bearded guy claims he's a woman, I may ignore it when it's irrelevant, but if it becomes relevant, I'll tell him "dude, sorry, but you're a dude".
> Do you insist on a shortened version of my name that I don't like?
Names are rarely carrying any meaning, they are generally arbitrary, so there's no reason to prefer one to another, unless it's done for nefarious purposes (like identity theft or tax evasion). So I see no reasonable cause to prefer one version of the name to another.
> Ditto if you refuse to comply with requests from other people that I consider reasonable.c
Note that I am a jerk if I refuse requests that you consider reasonable. Somehow your personal opinion of what reasonable becomes the law of the world, and my personal opinion of what's reasonable doesn't even enter the picture. Funny how it works?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this relevant? Or, who can you not criticize because of this?
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Verboten words that are completely commonplace and mundanely acceptable outside of a certain small but powerful bubble
I’m not aware of any such bubble which forbids the use of the word “gender”. Which bubble are you referring to? Disclaimer: I’m a queer non-binary leftist, and many of my community and loved ones are at least one of those. The closest thing to any “verboten” I’m aware of is “gender critical”, and as far as I can tell that’s mostly a term used by detractors in my own community, and even so it doesn’t reject usage of t…
Copilot, pretty clear from the context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Small children do not take hormones or have gender related surgery. Adolescents under medical oversight can. These treatments have very low regret rates and reduce suicides.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not aware of any such bubble which forbids the use of the word “gender”. Which bubble are you referring to? Disclaimer: I’m a queer non-binary leftist, and many of my community and loved ones are at least one of those. The closest thing to any “verboten” I’m aware of is “gender critical”, and as far as I can tell that’s mostly a term used by detractors in my own community, and even so it doesn’t reject usage of t…
>Which bubble are you referring to? Copilot, pretty clear from the context.