Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning from Tay’s introduction

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#171

Post by otterley »

intopieces wrote: post #135
Houshalter wrote: post #121

Microsoft please don't worry about this. No one but idiots are offended by this. It's understood that its just a stupid chatbot mimicking human responses. The AI isn't terrible, people are. And unless you keep a dataset of every offensive thing a person can say, and every offensive image they can tweet, there's no way to prevent people from tweeting it pictures of Hitler... or Scunthorpe. But who cares. This is just…

>No one but idiots are offended by this. Well, if those "idiots" include potential investors or customers of future MSFT AI products, "don't worry about it" is not sound advice. This is a very public failure of a promising Microsoft product.

And yet, they're still in business after Microsoft Bob.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#172

Post by mtgx »

atomic_cheese wrote: post #147
JabavuAdams wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should worry about this, but not because of the offense and outrage (mock or real -- I don't know). I'm certainly not offended, just amused. It just seems kind of obvious that Twitter users would grief the bot. Now, they address this point, but it's interesting that they still didn't last a day. Think about that -- they were expecting abuse, but they still lasted less than 24 hours. That's certainly interesting.

I was more impressed that it lasted an entire 24 hours. They're exposing it to the festering cesspool of Twitter, and it holds out for an entire day? That speaks to the quality of their anti-abuse measures more than anything else.

Come on. If your AI can't handle the Internet then it doesn't deserve to be on the Internet, let alone in charge of important stuff.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#173

Post by mtgx »

Houshalter wrote: post #121

Microsoft please don't worry about this. No one but idiots are offended by this. It's understood that its just a stupid chatbot mimicking human responses. The AI isn't terrible, people are. And unless you keep a dataset of every offensive thing a person can say, and every offensive image they can tweet, there's no way to prevent people from tweeting it pictures of Hitler... or Scunthorpe. But who cares. This is just…

No The Tay AI is objectively terrible for not properly knowing how to deal with humans.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#174

Post by tariqali34 »

mtgx wrote: post #172
atomic_cheese wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was more impressed that it lasted an entire 24 hours. They're exposing it to the festering cesspool of Twitter, and it holds out for an entire day? That speaks to the quality of their anti-abuse measures more than anything else.

Come on. If your AI can't handle the Internet then it doesn't deserve to be on the Internet, let alone in charge of important stuff.

Nah, it can handle the Internet just fine. It just can't speak on the Internet.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#175

Post by Nutmog »

Quinner wrote: post #91
eganist wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had to venture a hunch, it likely has something to do with a difference in culture.

Also the whole government control and censorship of the internet thing.

That wouldn't be an issue for just offending people, but only if it became political. Don't forget the US also has government control and censorship - try posting child porn on Twitter and see if the government leaves you alone.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#176

Post by Nutmog »

warmblood wrote: post #89
mindslight wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many of her tweets were pretty inflammatory What, were people forced to print the tweets out on sandpaper and wipe their asses with them? It's pretty fucked up that thought policing has gotten so entrenched into our psyche that it's "obvious" an experiment should be discontinued, apologized for, and be pondered as a priori irresponsible , all because it generated vulgar phrases! Corporations have always been vulner…

Standing behind the open and casual use of racial slurs isn't advocacy of freedom of speech. It's advocacy of a specific kind of hate speech that is only used when someone intends to vilify and direct hostility towards a marginalized minority.

Twitter stands behind it and seems to be doing fine. They didn't suspend Tay's account. Why are people not blaming Twitter for supporting hate speech?

Hate speech, in the broader form of being speech that vilifies marginalized people is rampant throughout society and it's completely hypocritical to pretend most of us don't do it. Look at any workplace lunchroom, or any group of friends hanging out in their house, or any school, any gossiping housewives, 99%er protesters, etc. Just about everybody vilifies vulnerable people. Not always categorizing them by race, but sometimes by personality type, job, country, city, status as a customer, company they work for or individual identity.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#178

Post by cpeterso »

bliti wrote: post #81
dsp1234 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because we had thought about all likely scenarios in our comfortable offices. Or because they had real world experience with another bot in a similar situation: "In China, our XiaoIce chatbot is being used by some 40 million people, delighting with its stories and conversations."

Interesting that it worked in China and not here. I'd like to read about the difference rather than a bland apology.

It sounded like XiaoIce was a chatbot hosting individualized conversations, so it wouldn't be a platform for rebroadcasting bad stuff.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#179

Post by mindslight »

panic wrote: post #170
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech isn't free if it doesn't include speech you find offensive.

Nobody is advocating that Microsoft should be thrown in jail or taken to court. This isn't about the legal protection of free speech.

I don't think anybody was talking about the legal protection of free speech, apart from that xkcd comic which uses it as a straw man to justify intolerant groupthink and corporate censorship.

In these days of digital sharecropping and social media saturation, the proscriptions on de jure government activity are much less involved with routine everyday freedom of speech.

Re: Learning from Tay’s introduction

#180

Post by throw11231 »

azakai wrote: post #96
pjmorris wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning from ED-209's introduction. Last week we tested ED-209 at our corporate headquarters. Our confidence in ED-209 was high because we had thought about all likely scenarios in our comfortable offices. We are deeply sorry and assume the full responsibility from ED-209's actions. Moving forward we will make sure to include safeguards to reduce the amount of pain caused by ED-209's deployment. Our deepest condolen…

P.S. And we would be remiss if we did not note that they did, in fact, have 20 seconds to comply.

"he did". In the fine movie a single male test person was chosen. Sorry for mentioning this, but recently HN is unreadable due to PC use of pronouns.
Post reply on HN