Jump to content

TAY failed, and there are no real excuses for that


jaclaz

Recommended Posts

As many might have read lately, the MS guys put online on Twitter an experimental AI thingie, and in NO TIME the kids on twitter managed to make it become an almost total jerk.
Just in case (example):
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297050/tay-microsoft-chatbot-racist

Till now this is (as I see it) "normal", the thingie is experimental, the whole AI stuff is at its very early stages and the kids (and trolls) on Twitter are undoubtedly (let's take out any "moral" judgement) quite good at it.

The "news" are that the goof MS guys posted an official apology (not really needed IMHO):

http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2016/03/25/learning-tays-introduction/

that sounds A LOT (at least to me) as a non-apology.

The statement by Mr. Peter Lee - Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Research - about:

Quote


Unfortunately, in the first 24 hours of coming online, a coordinated attack by a subset of people exploited a vulnerability in Tay.

even if followed by:
 

Quote

Although we had prepared for many types of abuses of the system, we had made a critical oversight for this specific attack. As a result, Tay tweeted wildly inappropriate and reprehensible words and images. We take full responsibility for not seeing this possibility ahead of time.

makes NO sense whatsoever, you FAILED (and failed BADLY ) at it, there was no such thing as a "cordinated attack by a subset of people", or if there was, it would have been the first d@mn thing you should have tested in the laboratory before going public.

All it takes is to get a few tens of average high school kids and let them play with the thingie a little bit, for a few hours, something that evidently is not within "standard" MS testing.
Or simply listen to Cat Stevens :w00t:

Quote

Oh, baby, baby, it's a wild world
 It's hard to get by just upon a smile
 Oh, baby, baby, it's a wild world

;)

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites


What concerns me is people who are eager to ascribe sentience to machines--followed by rights, of course--when those machines are really just sophisticated recording / playback devices, the only true personalities involved being those of the programmers.  It’s the “pathetic fallacy” run amok; prepare yourselves for much more of the same in the future.

These people should just lock themselves in a closet with a sock puppet and be done with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may be a long time before rights will be given to machines. We are still struggling to determine how to give rights to chimpanzees.

“Animals, including chimpanzees and other highly intelligent mammals, are considered property under the law,” she continued. “They are accorded no legal rights,” beyond being free from mistreatment or abuse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/nyregion/new-york-judge-denies-request-to-extend-legal-rights-to-2-chimps.html?_r=0

Now I am wondering if anyone put a chimpanzee on twitter and how it worked out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...
  • 8 months later...

If legal precendent means anything (and I cannot say how it applies to relative science fiction works) that any court cases concerning actual robots would follow the same lines as those chimpanzees in New York:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/04/21/chimps-given-human-rights-by-u-s-court-for-the-first-time/

BUT... AI is not "AI" currently. It is still just programming. Until any of these robots can pass the Turing Test, they are just machines and their creators should still be held responsible for any actual issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...