Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 513

Why do you think that's the complaint? [...] And here's where I think you go really wrong. I'm not all that good a telepath

It's not telepathy. Those are the complaints voiced above. You'll even find the "amateur social engineering" bit I quoted in this thread.

If Cortana doesn't behave right unless I treat it as I would a female colleague, that's a problem with Cortana

This is where we differ. The program is designed to simulate a personal assistant. Why would it act in any way contrary to that purpose? Why would you want it to act any other way? If I go to the store and buy a video game, should I complain that it makes a lousy word processor because of some belief I have that software should do what I want, regardless of its intended purpose? I don't understand this complaint.

Comment Re:yeah....no (Score 1) 141

It is a problem with serious consequences. A famous conversation, loosely translated: "Oh, yeah, great idea. Just kill all the Jews and Gypsies. It's no big deal, just round 'em up and bump 'em off. Oh, since we've got them all collected, why not make them build our weapons and planes too? That'll end well."

Sadly, the fuhrer was just looking for some propaganda ideas to help get those groups on board...

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 513

Your whole complaint seems to be that doing certain things with software will induce me to do similar things with women in real life, and I see no evidence of that.

I've very carefully avoided that. The problem here is that users seem to want Cortana to cater to their abuse fantasy. It's contrary to the purpose of the program, which not a fetish chat-bot, so there is a question as to why they expect a different behavior than the one Microsoft has provided. I contend that it's because they don't believe their abuse fantasy is just that, a fantasy. They believe that their abusive behavior, and the submissive response they expect, are or should be normal and socially acceptable. They believe that Microsoft is engaging in some sort of "social engineering" to make behaviors they believe are normal, unacceptable.

Obviously, those sorts of behaviors are not normal or socially acceptable. That the program, to their minds, highlights this, they feel threatened. They want their abusive behaviors and the submissive responses from the target of their abuse, to be considered normal and socially acceptable. They seem to think that Microsoft is under some sort of obligation to aid them in their efforts.

Personally, I expect software I use to do what I want, and I expect people to act according to their personalities.

So how would you have advised Microsoft as to Cortana's responses to abusive or sexually charged inputs? Should they have a setting to adjust the programs output to match every possible fantasy? Should they have catered to your specific preferences? Or should they have make the program respond like a professional personal assistant, like they did, as the program is intended to act like a personal assistant? What seems most reasonable to you? Regarding the decision they ultimately made, why to you think they made the wrong decision?

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 513

Some people are complaining that Cortana does not act subservient, despite being a machine.

The problem you're having is with the word 'subservient'. The program functions as intended in that the responses simulate a professional personal assistant. (This should not be in dispute.) The complaint those users have is that it doesn't act like they think a woman should act when they subject it to behavior that would be abusive had they done the same to a human.

And what's this about normalizing behavior?

Again, the program is functioning exactly as any normal person would expect. Those other people think the program should respond differently to certain kinds of inputs, because they believe that their abuse fantasy should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize abusive behaviors, to make them socially acceptable. Put simply, the program highlights how out-of-step their beliefs about how a person should react when abused is with the rest of society, and they want that to change. They would prefer that the program act like a fetish chat-bot because it would validate their twisted beliefs about how women should react when abused.

As I've painfully pointed out countless times, this has nothing at all to do with treating machines badly. Molest your toaster all you want. No one cares about your lewd conduct towards appliances.

Comment Re:Do you have any idea how you all sound? (Score 1) 513

Who said I don't think women should be treated as equals?

You did, when you decided that treating women like people, per my post, was feminism which you then rejected entirely. Now you contradict yourself:

That's not what feminism is about though. Feminism is not about treating women as equals, it's about treating women as opressed victims that require special treatment.

Pure delusion aside, you now reject the idea that treating women like people is a feminist principle. Which is it?

Perhaps you should go dig around whatever right-wing site gave you such a foolish idea to better clarify the position you think you're supposed to promote.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 513

You're missing th point. The objection people have here is that the default behavior of the application does not indulge them in their abuse fantasies. That is, they believe that the program should respond in such a way as to cater to that fantasy. It is counter to the function of the program, so the implication is that they believe their perversion should be considered normal. That is, they want to normalize that kind of abusive behavior.

Like I told the other guy, abuse technology all you want. Molest your toaster, fondle the coffee pot, whatever gets you going. That's not important. Normalizing abusive behaviors, however, is dangerous.. Abusive behavior should not be considered normal or socially acceptable.

Comment Re:Do you have any idea how you all sound? (Score 2) 513

How do I respond to this? If treating women like people, and not acting like a socially underdeveloped adolecent at work are anathema to you how can I possibly respond? If you think feminism is awful because you don't think that women should be treated like equals, and that adults should act like adults, what could I possibly offer in response?

When you think that normal, pro-social, behavior is tyranny and must be resisted at all costs, what can I offer you? How can I convince you that pro-social behavior benefits everyone, yourself included?

The truth is, I can't. You may have believed that some time ago, but your inexplicable anti-feminist ideology has stripped what was left of your (presumably limited) understanding of normal social behavior. I can recommend some adult social services if you're having trouble functioning at work or in public places.

Comment Re:Do you have any idea how you all sound? (Score 1) 513

It does not assume a, b, c, or d. Not a, as many is not the same as most. Not b, for obvious reasons. Not c as other industries is not all industries, and not d, for the same reasons as c.

There is, obviously, a problem in the software industry. That doesn't mean that other industries or individual work-places don't share those same problems. Denying the problem won't make it go away. Neither will it go away by denying that action needs to be taken because the problem also exists outside the software industry.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 1) 513

And this is wrong how?

So you think Microsoft should have taken the time to make sure that Cortana caters to any users particular fetish? Because users here are upset that this program isn't a fetish chat-bot. My word processor isn't a waffle iron, should I be upset?

Of course not. See, they're actually upset that their abuse fantasies aren't socially acceptable.

asking Cortana "can you suck me off?" is enough to trigger the functionality to stop responding. No abuse there - just sexual meaning.

This is a problem for you? How would you rather Microsoft have handled that input? (Let me guess: by indulging you in your power fantasy.) How would a real personal assistant respond to that? Would they consider that a form of abuse? Here in the real world, sexual harassment is abuse.

Comment Re:Ah, Microsoft (Score 2) 513

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep the number of passes in a compiler to a minimum. -- D. Gries

Working...