You keep asking the same question over and over again even as I answer it.
But you haven't answered it. "What could "abusive" language possibly mean in the context of a machine?" does not in any way answer the question of WHY you want your virtual assistant to indulge you in your abuse fantasies?
You don't want it to respond professionally, obviously, you want it to react to your abuse and sexually suggestive input in a particular way. I can only assume to satisfy some unusual fetish.
Why do you think Microsoft is obligated to cater to your specific perversion? Should they have invested the time to cater to every possible deviant's preferences? Why is it wrong for the program to respond to those types of inputs as though it were a professional personal assistant? It is designed to emulate one, after all. It is not designed to be a fetish chat-bot.
If you want a chat-bot designed to cater to your particular fetish, I'm sure you can find one. Why are you upset that Microsoft didn't add that feature to a completely unrelated program?
I have a guess. I suspect it's because you think that the kind of fantasy you want to indulge in is "normal" or, at least, should be considered normal. It's not, obviously, neither is it likely to become socially acceptable. You're angry because you aren't free to engage in deviant behaviors in the real world without facing (possibly serious) social consequences. The program doesn't matter. You're just ashamed of your particular perversion.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"
That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.
You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.
[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?
The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond. That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies. They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.
How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.
What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior. I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.
Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.
If you want to counter them, you have to work with conviction. Get promoted over them, and control or remove anyone you identify as a potential SJW or "progressive".
I love the implication that those offended by professional behavior are currently powerless and thus need to gain power to control others. I've long suspected that the silly power fantasies and the need to control others you see on Slashdot stems from feeling powerless or marginalized in the real world. That they attack groups they see as weaker, then, comes as no surprise as it gives them the feeling of power and control that they're after, even though it's completely imaginary.
Out of curiosity, why do you want a program designed to act humiliated and submissive when you say verbally abusive things? Or have I misunderstood you and want some other kind of response? Do you want it to return you with similarly abusive language?
You don't want "respond professionally". I'd guess that 'ignore the input' is out, as that would qualify as 'not taking any shit'. I can't understand why you'd want some other kind of response from a virtual assistant. Some sort of fetish?
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom.
No, you were talking about that. I still have no idea why.
I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise
Even though the first thing I did was explicitly deny that absurd accusation? You did read my post, right?
If you did, would you care to answer any of the questions I asked you? I suspect not. You very likely wouldn't want to answer honestly in a public forum.
Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed?
We're talking about the normalization of deviant behavior. Microsoft chose not to indulge users in that particular abuse fantasy. Why are you so concerned about it? It either affects you or it does not. If it does, why do you think that sort of fantasy should be considered normal or socially acceptable? If not, why would you care?
My concern is that so many users here want those sorts of fantasies and behaviors to be considered socially acceptable. That's a different problem, and the one that's been under discussion this entire time.
Let's draw an analogy. PervertGames releases a program that lets you simulate the molestation of children. App stores, in turn, refuse to carry it. The defense you offer here is one of the very few that can be offered in defense of PervertGames: no one is being harmed. Would you contend that app stores are wrong to refuse to carry the game (on the basis of your defense) just as you believe Microsoft is wrong to rebuff fantasy abuse? Or do you think app stores are right not to carry that kind of program because normalizing that behavior carries with it some social harm?
There's another question: Why do you think Microsoft is obligated to allow you to indulge in your abuse fantasy? The software can react any number of ways, from rebuffing your abuse to reacting in whatever perverse way makes you feel good about yourself when you abuse others. Why do you think it's wrong for them to choose not to cater to your particular, deviant, tastes?
? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
If two consenting adults want to engage in some legal act with one another, I couldn't care less. Abuse, however, isn't a consensual act, and many forms of abuse are, obviously, not legal.
If people wanted to fantasize about raping women, molesting children, or torturing animals I'd be just as concerned if a group were actively advocating that those behaviors be normalized.
That's what's happening here. People are outraged that the behavior they see as normal (acting out abuse fantasies) is made slightly more difficult because a virtual assistant will not indulge them in their twisted behavior fantasy. They don't think their interest in verbally abusing and subjugating women should be considered deviant.
My question to you, then, is why do you think that verbal abusive intended to humiliate and subjugate others should be considered normal, socially acceptable, behavior?
You've accused me of being puritanical, the implication being that my beliefs are prudish and promoting them adds no value and may possibly even be socially harmful. If you believe that to be the case, what do you think about the other deviant fantasies I listed above? Do you also think those should be considered normal or otherwise socially acceptable fantasies? If not, would you classify your arguments against them as puritanical?
because there are far bigger problems to worry about then someone having fun asking nonsense questions to a machine to see what the data set is.
There are bigger problems. So why is there so much concern over this particular issue? You'd think this would affect so few people, you'd see little more than a few "first post" and joke comments.
So many users here are deeply concerned about their inability to pretend to humiliate a computer program. I expected a few odd-balls, but to see so many is shocking. It makes me wonder if there isn't a deeper, more disturbing, issue that is truly behind their surprisingly strong reaction.
According to _whose_ standards? Yours?
This would be a societal norm. You know, those things that encourage people with deviant tastes to hide their particular perversions.
See, here we go. Somebody points out the obvious that this is a machine. Then you react and presume them to be a misogynist who routinely abuses women.
I imply no such thing.
I'm deeply curious, however, as to why so many people here are upset that they can't pretend to verbally abuse women and have the virtual object of their ridicule react as though it had been dominated or otherwise became a submissive and accepting of that kind of abuse. This is obviously a fantasy they have, which is disturbing. Are they simply too cowardly or socially awkward to take out their aggression on real people? (I hope so!) Or do they know that those sorts of behaviors are shameful, yet want to indulge in them anyway?
Now you'll turn around and accuse me of routinely abusing women
I've accused no one of routinely abusing women. The closest I come to that, is pointing out that many users here seem to have a fantasy where they abuse women where the women then, in turn, submit to their abuser. They're upset that they can't use the Cortana program to act out that fantasy.
It's very sad and very disturbing.
Somebody points out the obvious that this is a machine.
So why would anyone want to pretend it's a woman and then subject it to some perverse abuse fantasy? The problem, after all, isn't that someone is subjecting the program to sexually-charged verbal abuse, it's just a computer program, but that this bizarre abuse fantasy exists and is so common.
Look at this thread. If you were to believe every comment about what "the users want", then they want deeply contradictory things.
What you mean is "why doesn't Mozilla listen to me?" "Why aren't they tailoring their browser to meet my specific needs?"
We've got people here claiming that all Mozilla does is remove features. We've another camp complaining that all Mozilla does is add needless features. Then you have the camp that isn't happy even when they get what they want. They complain about the plugin system, then complain when they get exactly what they wanted. They complain about imaginary problems. They complain about things that were fixed years ago. I wouldn't listen to this group of users either.
Yes, the point is to complain about Firefox, regardless of the merits of those complaints. Never mind that this schedule is actually lighter than the old schedule, nor that they've been doing rolling releases for ages. If Mozilla does anything, including something you've wanted them to do for a while, you've got to tell everyone it's the worst decision ever, and that the world is coming to an end.
Firefox OS user here as well. You'll be interested to know that they're only dropping it internally on smartphone, though not until after 2.6. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from moving forward with it on their own, without specific support from Mozilla. A bit like how manufacturers can use Android without specifically involving Google.
To expect people to treat this thing like a real person is to reduce people to the status of machines.
That's the entire purpose of the interface. To function as though you were interacting with a real person. Your objection, then, would be to the existence of virtual assistants and similar interfaces in general, not this specific implementation. That is, if that was your actual objection.
Besides, if you ask the average modern positivist and they'll tell you that people are machines. This, apparently, isn't controversial on Slashdot, being a common assumption here. (Your objection to virtual assistants stands in opposition to that, in that it privileges humans over machines.) Not being able to engage in pretend harassment of pretend women, if the comments here are any indication, is considered by the average Slashdot user as the worst thing ever.
In context of this discussion, how should I have interpreted your objection? A general admonishment of context sensitive natural language interfaces, or as I did initially?
The solution is obvious: Stop acting like a bunch of socially underdeveloped 13-year-old boys and treat women like people. This isn't difficult. Countless other industries have managed, after all.
The real question here, naturally, is why you're so upset that it's not possible for you to use Cortana to pretend to harass a women?
That's a the heart of it, isn't it? You're upset that a pretend person won't simply accept your verbal abuse and offer you the illusion that you've dominated or otherwise humiliated it.
I don't know what sort of perversion would lead you to engage in such an activity. Though I'm glad that you've opted to indulge that impulse by virtual means, rather than in real life. If that is sufficient to satiate your bizarre inclinations, and they can not otherwise be constrained, I'm sure the Japanese have some program designed to take your sexually charged verbal abuse, and provide the response you're after.
Most of the absurd "feminists are the real sexists" posts, like your own, break down once you realize that the rest of the world, the one you believe has gone mad, simply expect you to treat women like people, and not some 'other'.
Which is the only way to get the number that low. Mobile users tend not to change browsers. Most have few, if any, any options. Including mobile is deceptive.
Slashdot Mirror
What I have a problem with is the sense of aggrievement now spreading to inanimate objects
Lucky for you, that's not an issue anyone actually has.
You keep asking the same question over and over again even as I answer it.
But you haven't answered it. "What could "abusive" language possibly mean in the context of a machine?" does not in any way answer the question of WHY you want your virtual assistant to indulge you in your abuse fantasies?
You don't want it to respond professionally, obviously, you want it to react to your abuse and sexually suggestive input in a particular way. I can only assume to satisfy some unusual fetish.
Why do you think Microsoft is obligated to cater to your specific perversion? Should they have invested the time to cater to every possible deviant's preferences? Why is it wrong for the program to respond to those types of inputs as though it were a professional personal assistant? It is designed to emulate one, after all. It is not designed to be a fetish chat-bot.
If you want a chat-bot designed to cater to your particular fetish, I'm sure you can find one. Why are you upset that Microsoft didn't add that feature to a completely unrelated program?
I have a guess. I suspect it's because you think that the kind of fantasy you want to indulge in is "normal" or, at least, should be considered normal. It's not, obviously, neither is it likely to become socially acceptable. You're angry because you aren't free to engage in deviant behaviors in the real world without facing (possibly serious) social consequences. The program doesn't matter. You're just ashamed of your particular perversion.
Because that is the only issue here - "should people be free to abuse their machines?"
That is the only issue you can see. I can only repeat myself so many times, read my posts above.
You advocated that they should not, for the benefit of society, indulge in what you consider to be deviant behaviour.
That would be 'society in general'. We have these things called 'social norms'. When I talk about deviant behavior, I mean behavior that deviates from those norms.
[...] they should be limited in their sexual expression to a machine?
The objection people are having here is to Cortana's response to abusive language. That is, they want the program to respond to their abusive comments in a particular way that is not the same as the "professional personal assistant" way in which the program is designed to respond. That is, they want the program to indulge them in their deviant fantasies. They believe Microsoft should have accommodated their particular fetish.
How you've turned that in to the belief that I want to limit how someone sexually interacts with a machine is a mystery. By all means, molest your toaster and ask the coffee machine if it wants to join in on the action. I couldn't care less. For your neighbor's sake, however, I will request that you draw the shades ahead of time.
What I see as the actual problem, is the attempt to normalize abusive behavior. I asked you some questions earlier that should help you to understand the issues. I would encourage you to answer them.
Asking to limit other peoples sexuality is in actual fact stepping into their bedrooms.
Why do you conflate abuse and sexuality? While it's true that some abuse can be sexual abuse, not all abuse is sexual. Neither is all sexual behavior abusive. You may want to sort that out.
Pretending to harass women is 'fun' for you? Okay...
If you want to counter them, you have to work with conviction. Get promoted over them, and control or remove anyone you identify as a potential SJW or "progressive".
I love the implication that those offended by professional behavior are currently powerless and thus need to gain power to control others. I've long suspected that the silly power fantasies and the need to control others you see on Slashdot stems from feeling powerless or marginalized in the real world. That they attack groups they see as weaker, then, comes as no surprise as it gives them the feeling of power and control that they're after, even though it's completely imaginary.
Out of curiosity, why do you want a program designed to act humiliated and submissive when you say verbally abusive things? Or have I misunderstood you and want some other kind of response? Do you want it to return you with similarly abusive language?
You don't want "respond professionally". I'd guess that 'ignore the input' is out, as that would qualify as 'not taking any shit'. I can't understand why you'd want some other kind of response from a virtual assistant. Some sort of fetish?
No, we are not - we are talking about whether it's ethically sound to invade someone's bedroom.
No, you were talking about that. I still have no idea why.
I believe that bedrooms and sex are off-limits as long as all the people involved as consenting adults. You appear to believe otherwise
Even though the first thing I did was explicitly deny that absurd accusation? You did read my post, right?
If you did, would you care to answer any of the questions I asked you? I suspect not. You very likely wouldn't want to answer honestly in a public forum.
You've confused legality with morality. What is right is not always what is legal, just as what is wrong is not always what is illegal.
Why do you care so much about what people get off on when no on else is being harmed?
We're talking about the normalization of deviant behavior. Microsoft chose not to indulge users in that particular abuse fantasy. Why are you so concerned about it? It either affects you or it does not. If it does, why do you think that sort of fantasy should be considered normal or socially acceptable? If not, why would you care?
My concern is that so many users here want those sorts of fantasies and behaviors to be considered socially acceptable. That's a different problem, and the one that's been under discussion this entire time.
Let's draw an analogy. PervertGames releases a program that lets you simulate the molestation of children. App stores, in turn, refuse to carry it. The defense you offer here is one of the very few that can be offered in defense of PervertGames: no one is being harmed. Would you contend that app stores are wrong to refuse to carry the game (on the basis of your defense) just as you believe Microsoft is wrong to rebuff fantasy abuse? Or do you think app stores are right not to carry that kind of program because normalizing that behavior carries with it some social harm?
There's another question: Why do you think Microsoft is obligated to allow you to indulge in your abuse fantasy? The software can react any number of ways, from rebuffing your abuse to reacting in whatever perverse way makes you feel good about yourself when you abuse others. Why do you think it's wrong for them to choose not to cater to your particular, deviant, tastes?
? Why do you find perfectly legal and consensual acts in other peoples bedrooms so objectionable?
If two consenting adults want to engage in some legal act with one another, I couldn't care less. Abuse, however, isn't a consensual act, and many forms of abuse are, obviously, not legal.
If people wanted to fantasize about raping women, molesting children, or torturing animals I'd be just as concerned if a group were actively advocating that those behaviors be normalized.
That's what's happening here. People are outraged that the behavior they see as normal (acting out abuse fantasies) is made slightly more difficult because a virtual assistant will not indulge them in their twisted behavior fantasy. They don't think their interest in verbally abusing and subjugating women should be considered deviant.
My question to you, then, is why do you think that verbal abusive intended to humiliate and subjugate others should be considered normal, socially acceptable, behavior?
You've accused me of being puritanical, the implication being that my beliefs are prudish and promoting them adds no value and may possibly even be socially harmful. If you believe that to be the case, what do you think about the other deviant fantasies I listed above? Do you also think those should be considered normal or otherwise socially acceptable fantasies? If not, would you classify your arguments against them as puritanical?
If you don't know what motivated your post, I can't help you.
I have a few ideas, but I doubt you'd admit to any of them.
because there are far bigger problems to worry about then someone having fun asking nonsense questions to a machine to see what the data set is.
There are bigger problems. So why is there so much concern over this particular issue? You'd think this would affect so few people, you'd see little more than a few "first post" and joke comments.
So many users here are deeply concerned about their inability to pretend to humiliate a computer program. I expected a few odd-balls, but to see so many is shocking. It makes me wonder if there isn't a deeper, more disturbing, issue that is truly behind their surprisingly strong reaction.
According to _whose_ standards? Yours?
This would be a societal norm. You know, those things that encourage people with deviant tastes to hide their particular perversions.
See, here we go. Somebody points out the obvious that this is a machine. Then you react and presume them to be a misogynist who routinely abuses women.
I imply no such thing.
I'm deeply curious, however, as to why so many people here are upset that they can't pretend to verbally abuse women and have the virtual object of their ridicule react as though it had been dominated or otherwise became a submissive and accepting of that kind of abuse. This is obviously a fantasy they have, which is disturbing. Are they simply too cowardly or socially awkward to take out their aggression on real people? (I hope so!) Or do they know that those sorts of behaviors are shameful, yet want to indulge in them anyway?
Now you'll turn around and accuse me of routinely abusing women
I've accused no one of routinely abusing women. The closest I come to that, is pointing out that many users here seem to have a fantasy where they abuse women where the women then, in turn, submit to their abuser. They're upset that they can't use the Cortana program to act out that fantasy.
It's very sad and very disturbing.
Somebody points out the obvious that this is a machine.
So why would anyone want to pretend it's a woman and then subject it to some perverse abuse fantasy? The problem, after all, isn't that someone is subjecting the program to sexually-charged verbal abuse, it's just a computer program, but that this bizarre abuse fantasy exists and is so common.
Please, then. Clearly state your intentions. That is, if you believe I'm in error. What prompted your post, and what, precisely, is your position?
Look at this thread. If you were to believe every comment about what "the users want", then they want deeply contradictory things.
What you mean is "why doesn't Mozilla listen to me?" "Why aren't they tailoring their browser to meet my specific needs?"
We've got people here claiming that all Mozilla does is remove features. We've another camp complaining that all Mozilla does is add needless features. Then you have the camp that isn't happy even when they get what they want. They complain about the plugin system, then complain when they get exactly what they wanted. They complain about imaginary problems. They complain about things that were fixed years ago. I wouldn't listen to this group of users either.
They'll do what they've always done, release a minor update to deal with the security issue or critical bug.
They've had a release schedule for ages, you know, it's right there in the summary.
Yes, the point is to complain about Firefox, regardless of the merits of those complaints. Never mind that this schedule is actually lighter than the old schedule, nor that they've been doing rolling releases for ages. If Mozilla does anything, including something you've wanted them to do for a while, you've got to tell everyone it's the worst decision ever, and that the world is coming to an end.
Firefox OS user here as well. You'll be interested to know that they're only dropping it internally on smartphone, though not until after 2.6. There's nothing stopping manufacturers from moving forward with it on their own, without specific support from Mozilla. A bit like how manufacturers can use Android without specifically involving Google.
To expect people to treat this thing like a real person is to reduce people to the status of machines.
That's the entire purpose of the interface. To function as though you were interacting with a real person. Your objection, then, would be to the existence of virtual assistants and similar interfaces in general, not this specific implementation. That is, if that was your actual objection.
Besides, if you ask the average modern positivist and they'll tell you that people are machines. This, apparently, isn't controversial on Slashdot, being a common assumption here. (Your objection to virtual assistants stands in opposition to that, in that it privileges humans over machines.) Not being able to engage in pretend harassment of pretend women, if the comments here are any indication, is considered by the average Slashdot user as the worst thing ever.
In context of this discussion, how should I have interpreted your objection? A general admonishment of context sensitive natural language interfaces, or as I did initially?
The solution is obvious: Stop acting like a bunch of socially underdeveloped 13-year-old boys and treat women like people. This isn't difficult. Countless other industries have managed, after all.
The real question here, naturally, is why you're so upset that it's not possible for you to use Cortana to pretend to harass a women?
That's a the heart of it, isn't it? You're upset that a pretend person won't simply accept your verbal abuse and offer you the illusion that you've dominated or otherwise humiliated it.
I don't know what sort of perversion would lead you to engage in such an activity. Though I'm glad that you've opted to indulge that impulse by virtual means, rather than in real life. If that is sufficient to satiate your bizarre inclinations, and they can not otherwise be constrained, I'm sure the Japanese have some program designed to take your sexually charged verbal abuse, and provide the response you're after.
You have far too much free time, and a surprisingly active imagination.
They expect people to treat it like a person.
Most of the absurd "feminists are the real sexists" posts, like your own, break down once you realize that the rest of the world, the one you believe has gone mad, simply expect you to treat women like people, and not some 'other'.
hat's across all versions on all platforms!
Which is the only way to get the number that low. Mobile users tend not to change browsers. Most have few, if any, any options. Including mobile is deceptive.
universally hated Australis
If by "universally" you mean "by a tiny minority of perpetually unsatisfied users on Slashdot".