Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Confirms Its Chinese-Language Chatbot Filters Certain Topics (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the filtering-stuff dept.

Microsoft's Chinese-language AI chat bot filters certain topics, the company confirmed Monday, although it did not clarify whether that included interactions deemed politically sensitive. From a report on Fortune: Last week, CNNMoney and China Digital Times reported that Xiaoice would not directly respond to questions surrounding topics deemed sensitive by the Chinese state. References to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 or "Steamed Bun Xi," a nickname of Chinese President Xi Jinping, would draw evasive answers or non sequiturs from the chat bot, according to the report. "Am I stupid? Once I answer you'd take a screengrab," read one answer to a question that contained the words "topple the Communist Party." Even the mention of Donald Trump, the American President-elect, drew an evasive response from the chat bot, according to reports. "I don't want to talk about it," Xiaoice said, reports CNN Money. In response to inquiries from Fortune, Microsoft confirmed that there was some filtering around Xiaoice's interaction. "We are committed to creating the best experience for everyone chatting with Xiaoice," a Microsoft spokesperson tells Fortune. "With this in mind, we have implemented filtering on a range of topics." The tech giant did not further elaborate to which specific topics the filtering applied.

19 comments

  1. Is anyone surprised? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

    I do find the retort "Am I stupid? Once I answer you'd take a screengrab," rather humorous though.

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      I do find the retort "Am I stupid? Once I answer you'd take a screengrab," rather humorous though.

      It sounds rather as if they do support a toppling of the Communist party, doesn't it? I, for one, would love to see that show trial, with a little text-to-speech enabled laptop sitting there on the defendant's seat and the executioner standing by with defibrillator paddles. Or an Ubuntu installation disc.

    2. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The moderately interesting thing from the (lack of detail in) the summary that may or may not verge into mild surprise territory for some is that this tech behavior may be happening to users/product-owners(...) in the U.S. Obviously if it is only happening to people in China, then it is merely sadly consistent with recent history of similar behavior with cyber products and services.

    3. Re:Is anyone surprised? by Megane · · Score: 1

      They learned their lesson from Tay.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  2. Why do they bother? by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 2

    "We are committed to creating the best experience for everyone chatting with Xiaoice," a Microsoft spokesperson tells Fortune.

    Why do they bother with such BS answers? Everybody can see through it - it's not for "creating the best experience" for the users.

    1. Re:Why do they bother? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      "We are committed to creating the best experience for everyone chatting with Xiaoice," a Microsoft spokesperson tells Fortune.

      Why do they bother with such BS answers? Everybody can see through it - it's not for "creating the best experience" for the users.

      You must understand the context of this statement.

      The "best experience" from a Chinese users' point of view is not being shot and his family not being billed for the bullet by the Chinese government.

      In that context the statement from MS is quite true and literal.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Why do they bother? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Everybody can see through it

      That's not the point. You live (I presume) in a democracy, where there are 3 kinds of information:
      1. Information the government approves of.
      2. Information the government tolerates.
      3. Information that is illegal.

      In authoritarian countries, there is no #2. So if the government tolerates it, people assume that the government also approves of it. So, if they don't approve of it, they have to ban it. They aren't trying to keep people from "knowing" the information, they are just signaling their disapproval.

      In a democracy, strong leaders tolerate dissent, and lashing out at criticism makes a leader look petty and weak.

      In an authoritarian country, leaders have no democratic legitimacy, and tolerating criticism is perceived as weakness. So if they want to keep power, they need to keep the reins tight.

      These differences are part of the reason that a transition from authoritarianism to democracy is difficult. The leaders need to change how they lead and build coalitions, but the people also need to change how they perceive their leaders, and what they expect from their government.

    3. Re:Why do they bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any PR phrase beginning with "We are committed" or "We are confident" is on my watch list of bullshit phrases. Also, any time someone claims to be doing something in "the best" interests of their users. Any other suggestions?

    4. Re:Why do they bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from 1 angle, it's good that MS is researching *exactly* what the Chinese government is censoring, being told directly. We could *not* have that information (beyond what could be extrapolated or reverse-engineered).

      theyre also potentially enabling slightly less privacy invasion than the govt itself, which is a better option for the popular there. (if the govt fails at data harvesting, ppl are fired; if MS fails, they get a slap?)

      that assumes ethical lay coders, ofc. of which there will be a diversity.

    5. Re:Why do they bother? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      People in a repressive country can have trouble with the idea of #2 existing. Look at the Jyllands-Posten riots, which saw a string of protests against all things Danish following a newspaper publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed. To the protesters the logic behind these was quite reasonable: The Danish government had taken no action to prevent the publication of the cartoons, which could only mean they approved the publication, therefore the entire country was to be held responsible. This lead to widespread boycotts of Danish businesses, and several violent mob attacks on Danish embassies.

    6. Re:Why do they bother? by RuffMasterD · · Score: 1

      I doubt as much thought went into those riots. People have collectively forgotten why some Muslims disapprove of images of the profit Mohammed. If they thought about it, then they would realise that they disapprove of images of Mohammed because images are false idols, which should not be worshipped under some branches of Islam. Other branches of Islam do worship images of Mohammed. The original intent was for people to only worship the real Mohammed, not shitty little trinkets. Christianity also went through phases of banning images of Christ many centuries ago. Idolatry is forbidden in the ten commandments: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image". Christians are a bit more relaxed about it these days. The same could be said about political dissent. We see it as keeping politicians honest. The Chinese see it as a great insult, but can't remember why.

      --
      Human Rights, Article 12: Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
    7. Re: Why do they bother? by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      it is done in simpler way: you gather an armed force and kill those in power. Works amazingly well

  3. Customs duties? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    is it the buyer's responsibility to pay the customs duties on the chinese epackets they receive?

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  4. Ah, those were the days... by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    Remember when Google and Facebook and Microsoft and other huge tech corporations used to insist that engaging with Communist China and other totalitarian regimes was the best way to make them more free?

    It seems more like these corporations have wound helping the totalitarians consolidate their hold on their countries. And all the while they've been helping the worst elements of our own governments track, monitor and control us.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:Ah, those were the days... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Remember when Google and Facebook and Microsoft and other huge tech corporations used to insist that engaging with Communist China and other totalitarian regimes was the best way to make them more free?

      Did anyone ever buy that? You could almost hear the true motives ("over a BILLION customers... over a BILLION customers...") percolate as they regurgitated some carefully lawyered corporate claptrap. They don't even pretend to care anymore, of course.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Ah, those were the days... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To be somewhat fair, disengaging hasn't worked any better. Decades of embargos have not brought freedom to Cuba, Iran or North Korea.

    3. Re:Ah, those were the days... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Did anyone ever buy that? You could almost hear the true motives ("over a BILLION customers... over a BILLION customers...") percolate as they regurgitated some carefully lawyered corporate claptrap. They don't even pretend to care anymore, of course.

      Companies that try to make lots of money will try to use any half-baked rationale to convince people (or themselves) that what they're doing is not only profitable, but right. Having the image of a "good company" gets them extra customers, or at least staves off protests. "No trust us, this is actually really good for the people... as we rake in the dough" is a line you should not swallow from ANY company, because they always have a conflict of interest. I think some of these explanations came about when Google's company motto was "don't be evil," (clearly they don't give a shit about keeping up that image anymore) and needed to convince people that their moneymaking in China and being morally just were compatible.

  5. Corporate Jelloware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS has always preferred to empower corporations and governments over people. Contrast that to Apple and/or Google. Love them or hate them they empower individual sovereignty over your universal machine, over your access to information, and your digital footprints. MS caters to a 20th autocratic control model. Their chatbots are the new AOL.

  6. Heya Skipper! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like you want to talk about issues with a Microsoft product! Do you think I am stupid? Once I answer you'd take a screengrab!