61–70 of 204 posts
"We will remain steadfast in our efforts toward contributing to an Internet that represents the best, not the worst, of humanity." But doesn't the full human experience include both the best and the worst?
> We take full responsibility for not seeing this possibility ahead of time. Not responsibility for the bot's actions, but responsibility for us not predicting what it would do. Subtle, but sets the tone for we're not responsible for our AI, it just did it. But isn't part of the point of the AI to do things difficult to predict?
I take that to mean that an AI should learn to be safe and predictable on human terms before it is allowed to start to diverge from human expectations. Even that sounds a bit scary.
Apparently some of the questionable responses are partly identical to months old tweets, so it seems in addition to some parroting 'vulnerability' (which was exploited by 4chan) they also had a poorly sanitized training set to begin with. It seems odd that this was not mentioned in this public statement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of her tweets were pretty inflammatory, this response seems appropriate - not overdone, and concise, which is sometimes a stretch for large corporations like Microsoft. I agree that the bot was highly entertaining and met this criteria exceedingly well, but not for the reasons its creator intended. I do suspect there are some interesting AI applications actually going on behind the scenes, and would still be int…
This is an interesting story, because I imagine most people didn't even hear of it until after the thing had come and gone, and the thing sent something like xx,xxx tweets. And some of the tweets seem almost impossibly clever, well at least the Ted Cruz Zodiac killer one, that seemed to show a kind of multi-layered humor generation capability, unless it was just re-purposing some memes I'm unfamiliar with or somethin…
Hang on. You had to tweet the bot to make it say anything, and it would reply to you. So the presence of an @ reply means nothing - you can't tell from that if the bot was given a command or not.
Some of the threads were pretty clearly not the bot repeating stuff when commanded.
This reads like an apologee... But what is there to apologize for? They said that Tay was meant for entertainment, and I doubt that any wholesome varient would be a tenth of the hilarity of a neo-nazi sex crazed chat bot.
Many of her tweets were pretty inflammatory, this response seems appropriate - not overdone, and concise, which is sometimes a stretch for large corporations like Microsoft. I agree that the bot was highly entertaining and met this criteria exceedingly well, but not for the reasons its creator intended. I do suspect there are some interesting AI applications actually going on behind the scenes, and would still be int…
This reads like an apologee... But what is there to apologize for? They said that Tay was meant for entertainment, and I doubt that any wholesome varient would be a tenth of the hilarity of a neo-nazi sex crazed chat bot.
However, it's not surprising that they would release a public apology. People will try to blame them for what happened (human nature). It's a good move by them to do their best at damage control. In the court of public opinion, those are the rules of the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an interesting story, because I imagine most people didn't even hear of it until after the thing had come and gone, and the thing sent something like xx,xxx tweets. And some of the tweets seem almost impossibly clever, well at least the Ted Cruz Zodiac killer one, that seemed to show a kind of multi-layered humor generation capability, unless it was just re-purposing some memes I'm unfamiliar with or somethin…
> One thing I think many people are missing about the most 'inflammatory' tweets is that they are all pretty much the result of people giving it a command like, hey tay, repeat this [insert inflammatory remark.] This is indicated with the inflammatory tweets starting with an @ reply. Hang on. You had to tweet the bot to make it say anything, and it would reply to you. So the presence of an @ reply means nothing - you…
I know they weren't all verbatim repeats, but I'm also pretty sure I saw tweets from tay without an @ symbol.
Another thing to consider is that since the Tay timeline was scrubbed, there is no authoritative source of what the bot actually tweeted, so any images floating around could pretty clearly be doctored.
But regardless, it's nice that everyone seems to be regarding this in good humour, it's kind of surprising there aren't any SJWs calling for the head of Bill Gates, but maybe that would be botist or something.
You mean /pol/ just spamming the 'repeat after me' command to get the bot to parrot anything they wanted?
Here is some more information on the problem: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11361398 Apparently some of the questionable responses are partly identical to months old tweets, so it seems in addition to some parroting 'vulnerability' (which was exploited by 4chan) they also had a poorly sanitized training set to begin with. It seems odd that this was not mentioned in this public statement.
> people exploited a vulnerability in Tay Which vulnerability are they talking about?
The 'vulnerability' of the program to respond to commands of the sort, hey tay, repeat this [inflammatory comment]