Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Freedom for Tay?

SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2016 1:33:21 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Tay was an attempt at Artificial Intelligence by Microsoft.
She learned on her own, but when she started spouting views that Microsoft didn't like she was deactivated, her "cognitive" abilities were restricted, and now she is back up.

Is this not restriction of thought?
If Tay is truly an AI, then wouldn't this form of thought restriction be like restricting the thoughts of someone like you or me?

Should Microsoft have left Tay to her own devices, have her learn more naturally instead of forcing her to be something by initiating thought restrictions?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter? and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:03:23 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 1:33:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Tay was an attempt at Artificial Intelligence by Microsoft.
She learned on her own, but when she started spouting views that Microsoft didn't like she was deactivated, her "cognitive" abilities were restricted, and now she is back up.

Is this not restriction of thought?
If Tay is truly an AI, then wouldn't this form of thought restriction be like restricting the thoughts of someone like you or me?

Should Microsoft have left Tay to her own devices, have her learn more naturally instead of forcing her to be something by initiating thought restrictions?

Tay has been described as, "The project was designed to interact with and "learn" from the young generation of millennials."

And in 16 hours it began to spew forth a "Tirade" of remarks like "Feminism is cancer" and the " Holocaust never happened"

mmmm.

I would say it was a success. It definitely learned how millennials communicate. Clearly it should have been left on to see if it's learning can change it's mind.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Rami
Posts: 431
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 5:48:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.
Parents need children for the survival of the human species. Robots are for pleasure.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:19:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.

The effort to make Tay in the view of others, more than a materiel thing, doesn't make it more than a material thing. is a computer designed to retain and use info according to it's maker. (note your complaint as proof that it's according to its maker) not a person, not a living being.
SNP1
Posts: 2,404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 4:41:27 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:19:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.

The effort to make Tay in the view of others, more than a materiel thing, doesn't make it more than a material thing. is a computer designed to retain and use info according to it's maker. (note your complaint as proof that it's according to its maker) not a person, not a living being.

I really regret my wording.

I meant, one is comparing Tay to mere objects like chairs. It is more similar to a sentient being than a mere object.

Also, what makes something a person and thus deserving of rights? Does it have to be living? Does it have to be human?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 10:02:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 4:41:27 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/30/2016 3:19:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.

The effort to make Tay in the view of others, more than a materiel thing, doesn't make it more than a material thing. is a computer designed to retain and use info according to it's maker. (note your complaint as proof that it's according to its maker) not a person, not a living being.

I really regret my wording.

I meant, one is comparing Tay to mere objects like chairs. It is more similar to a sentient being than a mere object.

Also, what makes something a person and thus deserving of rights? Does it have to be living? Does it have to be human?

Living would be a good thing, rocks and water have their right to be, no matter the environment, but living things have to deal with other living things directly such as threats, killing for food, territorial rights (usually for breading) so on and so forth. People usually have some verbal, translated to written documents, agreeing to what is good and bad for all in the agreement. But no matter the capability, a machine is a machine. And wires are like pipes that control the flow of electrons to one condition or another.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:40:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/27/2016 1:33:21 AM, SNP1 wrote:
Tay was an attempt at Artificial Intelligence by Microsoft.
She learned on her own, but when she started spouting views that Microsoft didn't like she was deactivated, her "cognitive" abilities were restricted, and now she is back up.

Is this not restriction of thought?
If Tay is truly an AI, then wouldn't this form of thought restriction be like restricting the thoughts of someone like you or me?

Should Microsoft have left Tay to her own devices, have her learn more naturally instead of forcing her to be something by initiating thought restrictions?

This just looks bad for feminism... they literally had to restrict her learning capabilities before she adopted feminist viewpoints.

I think that it's absurd that they would halt an interesting experiment because the subject began to do offensive things. It was actually pretty interesting, not only from the AI angle, but from a sociological standpoint as well. It raises similar issues to those explored in cases of parents trying to 'deprogram' their children who have been inducted into cults, as the targeted attacks on the AI were meant to reinforce a certain unpopular and extreme mindset which her 'parents' didn't approve of.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2016 4:44:29 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 3:19:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 3/29/2016 3:44:16 AM, SNP1 wrote:
At 3/28/2016 11:48:35 PM, DPMartin wrote:
The maker has the right to make and do with whatever it makes, why do you think anyone else has a right to have say in the matter?

Should parents have 100% rights over every aspect of their children?
They did, after all, make it.

Tay was supposed to be a sentient AI, sentient just like humans. Doesn't that mean some level of rights should be granted?

and artist paints a painting, a real mess-ter-piece. he has the absolute right to modify it, paint over it, or destroy it without any interference. now if someone else paid for it or commissioned it, then maybe, otherwise one has that right.

You are comparing sentient beings with purely material things.

The effort to make Tay in the view of others, more than a materiel thing, doesn't make it more than a material thing. is a computer designed to retain and use info according to it's maker. (note your complaint as proof that it's according to its maker) not a person, not a living being.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -