No, actually I wanted voice control of my device plus search. The voice control is a little lacking. Not that I have a Windows phone - I've just tried it on the desktop. But, back on topic, I won't pretend I'm talking to a person.
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?
Oh, I see. I will answer that as soon as you explain why you like to beat your wife.
I can see you're deliberately missing the point here, which is that Microsoft should be making a PA that does what customers want it to do without engaging in, as I said before, amateur social engineering.
Did I? From what I can tell it's mostly a speech-to-text engine linked to a search engine, with a tiny handful of special cut outs thrown in to make it seem more responsive. It's difficult for me to pretend that's some kind of AI simulation.
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?
What could "abusive" language possibly mean in the context of a machine?
What I want is for my devices, my machines, my mechanical not-persons, to do what I tell them, in an language I choose to use whatever the subtext. I don't want the manufacturer to try engage in amateur social engineering.
You keep asking the same question over and over again even as I answer it. What makes you think I'll give you a different answer when you change the wording?
You did. I wouldn't buy it because "it still doesn't take any of [my] shit". There is literally nothing you can say to a machine (assuming there are no people around) that's the slightest bit inappropriate, and I don't appreciate being subjected to amateur social engineering from the vendor of a product I paid for.
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.
Oh, I see. Are we going to the old "code words" argument, where you argue with what you think I should have said so you can slip in a disqualification? I know it's easier to win, but it's dishonest and poinless. How can I take you seriously if even you think your point of view is too weak to stand up in honest debate?
Yes, the interface functions as if I were interacting with a real person, but that's because nobody wants to learn a new language to give verbal commands to my smartphone. It's not because the phone is a person.
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.)
I don't really care what "the average modern positivist", whatever the hell that means, thinks on the subject. From a practical standpoint the idea just falls apart. Shall we charge people with murder for breaking a phone?
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.
And there you are again twisting what people are saying into an attack. That's not the objection. The objection is the idea we should be expected to treat a machine as something other than a machine.
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?
Why don't you assume the text of the objection I'm making is the one you should respond to instead of looking for code words and dog whistles and whatever else you've primed yourself to expect?
Yes, I think it's a negative thing. You can not act inappropriately to a machine you own. It's simply not possible. The people who are simple enough to pick up social cues from this are really learning to treat anything that sounds like a person as a person, instead of to treat people like people because they're people.
Let me rephrase: "To expect people to treat this thing like a real person is to reduce people to the status of machines." Whether it sounds like a woman or a man is completely irrelevant.
I find your willingness to engage in this kind of anthropomorphization disgusting. Do you say "please" and "thank you" to it? You're cheapening the very idea of personhood by pretending this thing is a woman.
Sure, people want to be able to do all that stuff. Which multi-core chips will be able to do. In a smaller package, with better battery life, and less fan noise.
Just because consumers don't understand why that computer is quieter than the others doesn't mean they don't want it.
Yes, well, even those of us who remember it realize it's long past, and that there's no point in trying to change the meaning of a phrase probably 99% of people agree on.
This certainly doesn't represent "a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years". For the vast, vast majority of people performance/kw is more important than raw performance in a single core. If my process gets a core to itself instead of sharing one that's 10% faster, that's progress.
I'm sure there are applications out there that must be single threaded, but I'd be surprised if Intel stopped making hot, high performance cores for people in that boat. It's just going to be a niche market.
Yeah, "hoss" is horse. A "one hoss shay" is a type of one-horse carriage. It will make more sense if you read the article, as the summary doesn't connect the allegory.
I'm not convinced modular smartphones will ever be more than a niche product. The whole goal of smartphone design is to fit as much as you can into a tiny package, and modularization would require lowest-common-denominator physical dimensions.
Statistics are meaningless in the context of an individual. It seems perfectly reasonable to eschew gun ownership for yourself if you have problems with depression or substance abuse.
As far as the "Bosnian sniper" issue, it's possible she mixed up two different events in her mind. I've done it also. Human memory is an odd thing. Fortunately I'm a nobody such that my mistakes don't mean much on the world stage.
Sure, sure. She probably mixed it up with that other time a sniper was shooting at her.
Slashdot Mirror
No, actually I wanted voice control of my device plus search. The voice control is a little lacking. Not that I have a Windows phone - I've just tried it on the desktop. But, back on topic, I won't pretend I'm talking to a person.
Oh, I see. I will answer that as soon as you explain why you like to beat your wife.
I can see you're deliberately missing the point here, which is that Microsoft should be making a PA that does what customers want it to do without engaging in, as I said before, amateur social engineering.
Did I? From what I can tell it's mostly a speech-to-text engine linked to a search engine, with a tiny handful of special cut outs thrown in to make it seem more responsive. It's difficult for me to pretend that's some kind of AI simulation.
What could "abusive" language possibly mean in the context of a machine?
What I want is for my devices, my machines, my mechanical not-persons, to do what I tell them, in an language I choose to use whatever the subtext. I don't want the manufacturer to try engage in amateur social engineering.
You keep asking the same question over and over again even as I answer it. What makes you think I'll give you a different answer when you change the wording?
Most successful software company in history? You mean, aside from Google?
That was a dig at your douchiness.
Microsoft has failed, over and over again, in the mobile space.
I believe I've stated my "intentions" quite clearly. What don't you understand?
You did. I wouldn't buy it because "it still doesn't take any of [my] shit". There is literally nothing you can say to a machine (assuming there are no people around) that's the slightest bit inappropriate, and I don't appreciate being subjected to amateur social engineering from the vendor of a product I paid for.
Oh, I see. Are we going to the old "code words" argument, where you argue with what you think I should have said so you can slip in a disqualification? I know it's easier to win, but it's dishonest and poinless. How can I take you seriously if even you think your point of view is too weak to stand up in honest debate?
Yes, the interface functions as if I were interacting with a real person, but that's because nobody wants to learn a new language to give verbal commands to my smartphone. It's not because the phone is a person.
I don't really care what "the average modern positivist", whatever the hell that means, thinks on the subject. From a practical standpoint the idea just falls apart. Shall we charge people with murder for breaking a phone?
And there you are again twisting what people are saying into an attack. That's not the objection. The objection is the idea we should be expected to treat a machine as something other than a machine.
Why don't you assume the text of the objection I'm making is the one you should respond to instead of looking for code words and dog whistles and whatever else you've primed yourself to expect?
And for that reason alone I wouldn't buy it.
Yes, I think it's a negative thing. You can not act inappropriately to a machine you own. It's simply not possible. The people who are simple enough to pick up social cues from this are really learning to treat anything that sounds like a person as a person, instead of to treat people like people because they're people.
You're off on a tangent.
Let me rephrase: "To expect people to treat this thing like a real person is to reduce people to the status of machines." Whether it sounds like a woman or a man is completely irrelevant.
To expect people to treat this thing like a real woman is to reduce women to the status of machines.
I find your willingness to engage in this kind of anthropomorphization disgusting. Do you say "please" and "thank you" to it? You're cheapening the very idea of personhood by pretending this thing is a woman.
Microsoft falls on its face again. Cortana isn't a woman. It's a piece of software, and it damn well better be subservient.
Sure, people want to be able to do all that stuff. Which multi-core chips will be able to do. In a smaller package, with better battery life, and less fan noise.
Just because consumers don't understand why that computer is quieter than the others doesn't mean they don't want it.
Yes, well, even those of us who remember it realize it's long past, and that there's no point in trying to change the meaning of a phrase probably 99% of people agree on.
This certainly doesn't represent "a rolling back of the progress it made over the last fifty years". For the vast, vast majority of people performance/kw is more important than raw performance in a single core. If my process gets a core to itself instead of sharing one that's 10% faster, that's progress.
I'm sure there are applications out there that must be single threaded, but I'd be surprised if Intel stopped making hot, high performance cores for people in that boat. It's just going to be a niche market.
There was never a recount that showed anything other than a Bush victory. You people are simply crazy.
Yeah, "hoss" is horse. A "one hoss shay" is a type of one-horse carriage. It will make more sense if you read the article, as the summary doesn't connect the allegory.
I'm not convinced modular smartphones will ever be more than a niche product. The whole goal of smartphone design is to fit as much as you can into a tiny package, and modularization would require lowest-common-denominator physical dimensions.
The US spelling is "shay".
So, the same person who called Trump a fascist last week is trying to get a mob together to censor him? Yeah.
This is the idiot who described Trump as a fascist the other day.
Must be an election coming up. Timothy is going full retard.
Statistics are meaningless in the context of an individual. It seems perfectly reasonable to eschew gun ownership for yourself if you have problems with depression or substance abuse.
Sure, sure. She probably mixed it up with that other time a sniper was shooting at her.