[zxcvvcxz]

> The great experience with XiaoIce led us to wonder: Would an AI like this be just as captivating in a radically different cultural environment? Tay – a chatbot created for 18- to 24- year-olds in the U.S. for entertainment purposes – is our first attempt to answer this question.

Maybe you did answer that question.

No, the answer is not that 18-24 year olds in the US are racist and what not. But that the ones responsible for a disproportionate amount of internet content are willing to make crude, politically-incorrect jokes to get attention and piss off their masters.

I wonder what will happen when governments start applying machine learning to try predicting things like welfare usage and crime. Certain patterns might emerge we don't want to see! We'll have to apologize for our racist algorithms.

It would be much more interesting to examine the results of this experiment. Why are so many people on the internet interested in spreading hateful content, which is being accurately reflected by our bot? No, instead we do what I did in grade 8 science class: fudge the results so they're what the teacher expects.

[dr_zoidberg]

A coworker mentioned, a couple[0] (1-2) years ago, that in some european country they were starting to use a machine-learning-driven system to predict zones where more police was needed to better respond to crime. It wasn't Minority Report style, just a broad statistic, but it was quite interesting. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the country and the name, so I can't be any more specific.

[0] https://xkcd.com/1070/ -- can't say "a couple" without refering to this strip, obviously.

[rasz_pl]

That mysterious european country is called US of A

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/jun/25/predicting-cri...

[dr_zoidberg]

Hmmm... the system in general it sounds like the one I had read about a few years back, but I'm pretty sure about it was in an european country. Also, the seismic activiy and LA landmarks don't ring a bell at all (though it's interesting to read about it).

[dghughes]

I've seen something similar created by an ex RCMP officer. I think it was used mainly in Vancouver, BC.

[trhway]

>Why are so many people on the internet interested in spreading hateful content

because internet is just another medium. It happens in other mediums too. Look for example at the US presidential campaign - even Lindsey Graham in yesterday's Daily Show stated that 35% of Republicans (he meant Trump supporters) are racists/etc. (though i'd side with Noah here that it is whole (not just 35%) Republican party and Trump is a match made in heavens).

[zxcvvcxz]

Wait, you think the whole of the Republican party are racists?

I think you and your friend Trevor Noah might be a part of the reason there's a lot of vitriol on the internet. You're basically claiming that half of the US voter electorate - who identify and register as Republicans - are racist.

Well let me tell you some things that others on the internet might not have the patience to tell you. The Republican party believes in individual liberties and was actually the original political party to end slavery in the US. Yes, you read that right. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

They don't want lower taxes and less social services because they hate minorities and poor people. They want lower taxes - and a smaller state - because they believe individuals have control over their destiny. That they deserve equal opportunities, and shouldn't be told what to do or how to think by the government. They don't think black people are worse and therefore need the government's help.

If you and other liberal elites think we need to hand hold a certain race of people with the implication that they're just not as good, then I'd say you're the racist.

If you want to discuss and debate actual policy, by all means. But if you're going to blanket label a group of people like that, then you're a part of the problem with political discourse in this country.

The Republican party also includes the like of Ron and Rand Paul, libertarians who a lot of the HN demographic identify with and support.

[soundwave106]

The entire Republican party is not racist -- any claim that suggests that is pretty laughable. However, the Republican party (since Nixon at least, when LBJ signed the civil rights act) has long had a strategy of, er, courting racists (though not as explicitly as Trump has).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

To be honest, it's probably better to throw "racism" / nativism under the broader category of "right wing populism". Many other rich world countries do still have (to some degree or another) a pure right wing populist party that on some sides exhibits some racist / nativist / identity politics tendencies; since many of these countries are parliamentary and are not necessarily first past the post, they are often their own entity (eg National Front, UKIP, Party For Freedom, etc.).

The United States is not a parliamentary system (and uses a first past the post style method to boot); this results in more party integration. Thus the US only has two dominant parties, and both tend to be slightly uneasy coalitions as a result (that are not necessarily static; the Democrats and Republicans 60 years ago represented quite different things).

[solipsism]

While it's obviously true that not all Republicans are racist (for any given definition of racism, it's not a well-defined word), it is disingenuous to imply there's not a problem with racism in the Republican party, to a much greater degree than the Democratic party. Same goes for homophobia, islamophoboa, jingoism, and xenophobia.

You don't have to admit it. In fact, the fact that do few Republicans admit it is the reason they can't stop being "the stupid party," despite their best efforts. It's the reason the GOP is dying, and might very well die this election, if Trump is elected. So by all means, pretend there's no problem. Meanwhile plenty of serious Republicans are aghast at how much the Republican electorate and the establishment, not to mention the more fringe psychos, have destroyed anything good the GOP may have stood for with this fear-based insane focus on social backwardism.

Talking about the Republican party of Lincoln's time is silly. How is that relevant? No Republican alive today was alive then. It's a completely different party with completely different values. I'm sure you also like to mention how the Democratic party was home to the KKK decades ago. Just as irrelevant.

[throwaway_xx9]

It's a shame that what the Republicans say they stand for and what they do are polar opposites. That's why even Republicans hate the Republican party of 2016.

[trhway]

man, even though i'm an immigrant (came here in 2000), my knowledge of the US history is much wider and deeper than your post, thank you. Being the immigrant though, i don't have that emotional baggage of the history like you that would clutter my vision and perception of the current reality, and thus i was able to observe and form my opinion about political forces here from scratch. With regard to quality of my information collecting and opinion forming - I have pretty good education and analytical skills, i.e. high GPA MS in Math from one of the best math schools in USSR/Russia.

[SixSigma]

Are you sure it was hateful content?

Is Mel Brookes [1] singing "Springtime for Hitler" spreading hateful content.

I think the word you are looking for is "irreverent".

[1] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/09/article-1168749-00...