See?
Terminator is next.
Next?
1 Like
This is an utterly ridiculous argument. Itâs like saying we should leave chemical spill superfund sites around as a âwarningâ to âshow what happens when people donât care about the environmentâ.
The world doesnât need more examples of racism and hate.
8 Likes
No it does not need more examples of racism and hate. Nor is saying it should have stayed up as an example of such. It should have remained as an example of how the AI is flawed and the dangers it can present.
Itâs like not acknowledging the existence KKK and Naziâs because by doing so you are going to also show their hateful and bigoted speech.
1 Like
We have plenty of commentary / articles documenting the mistake. That should suffice. More than sufficeâŚ
6 Likes
Thatâs what I think is paradoxical about it. If itâs only the publicâs input which is objectionable, then this seems more like bad publicity for the public, rather than the developers. And if itâs the public doing it, why hide this from the public? Maybe if people are more critical, they will type something better. Itâs like attacking a mirror.
2 Likes
By taking it down it takes away the proof. The comments and what it was should be left for people to see for themselves IMHO.
Because they expect (rightfully or not) the public wonât understand that distinction? And even if the public would grok that, itâs lots easier to point to somebody else (program/programmers/bad AI) than look in the mirror and point at yourself.
1 Like
I really donât get the argument youâre trying to make. If itâs documented what happened, why would the bot need to stay up as proof?
2 Likes
Because documentation is prone to being faked and misrepresented. Leaving it up posed no real risk but was a direct example of the problems with it. There could have just as easily been a disclaimer put up about it.
What good or purpose does taking it down do?
Taking it down allows them to fix it
They will simulate the âgrossâ facility of tweens. It is primarily what they will doâŚ
And probably hard code it to think nazis and racists and rapists are disgusting.
What parents doâŚ
2 Likes
Well, Iâm sure for one Microsoft doesnât want to deal with leaving it up with a disclaimer stating âThis is how we really fucked up one time, and by the way, be warned itâs offensive.â
I also donât see how it couldnât be modified if it were left up in such a way that it didnât misrepresent its past behavior. Having it on the Internet really isnât any more proof than anything that can and will be written about it.
2 Likes
Sure it is. The thing itself is the best proof it is. They could easily have juast taken the code and tried to âfix itâ and made another one next to it.
You act like itâs a real life form or something.
Itâs solidly in the uncanny valley.
We canât be sure we canât tell it isnât yet⌠But weâre getting close.
Great, next weâll be talking about it having rights and treating it as an equal. Treating it like a real person.
I was speaking to the point you were making about how documentation can be misrepresented, and pointing out that from a point in time in the future it would be hard to determine that what was online was not misrepresenting its past behavior either. Especially without an external reference, so saying it being online is somehow more proof than any documentation doesnât logically follow for me.
2 Likes
It should have been allowed to spew itâs nonsense as an example of itâs faults.
Micorsoft putting an end to it and shutting it down is covering up the problem with it and the condition that gave rise to it.
Donât worry. We donât even treat real people like real people.
2 Likes
True enough.
LoL, thatâs not why we leave superfund sites around, but we sure as hell leave them aroundâŚ
youâd think weâd get the warning factor feature as a tangential benefit to our own collective laissez-faire attitude toward themâŚbut if that happened weâd clean them up? So it ainât working.
3 Likes
