Hacker News
points by Arnt 10 hours ago | 0 comments
I wrote something like this a long time ago. The customer's request was: "don't make this software produce swear words on its own". Note: on its own.

Producing "trump is …" when a user wants that is one thing. Producing that when the user wants something else could be construed as coming from the software itself, and we all know that people looking for a shitstorm will seize the opportunity.

So probabilistic software like a swipe interpreter will often be written to avoid some guesses, to lessen the chance of a shitstorm. Users who want that output have to use a dependable input method instead of one based on probabilities and guesswork.

IMO this avoidance isn't among the ten worst consequences of shitstorms.

[–] howunfortunate 9 hours ago
As another example, imagine if "trans women are" autosuggested "men" or "ugly" for the next prediction.

This would probably be a bad customer experience for many people, even if Apple could prove these are simply the most common n-gram completions.

And if they altered their training data to avoid completions that are politically unpalatable, IMO that's actually much much worse than a grey list.

I'm a big free speech guy but this one is genuinely a bit complex.

[–] briandw 7 hours ago
There is no winning here. It's impossible to make autocomplete inoffensive. In fact making it inoffensive, is offensive. theguardian.com would make Apple the bad guy no matter the policy choice.
[–] armchairhacker 5 minutes ago
They could make it a simple algorithm and publish it. Then if someone accuses Apple of being biased towards their word, they just get directed to the algorithm.

Of course, people will still accuse Apple of being biased. But they’ll be wrong, and never manage to prove it (unlike this guy), which I think matters.

[–] hnlmorg 6 hours ago
There is a way to win here: make it an opt out

- [ ] Disable autocomplete swear filter.

But finely grained options are not Apple’s way.

[–] Retric 2 hours ago
iOS has been steadily offering more options over time. And yes taken individually customization seems like the correct choice basically every time but eventually you end up with a mess.

Consider the logic for tap’s could offer hundreds of customizations. That’s core functionality and I’m sure someone internally is thinking deeply about many of them. But if you offer zero customization most people just get used to how things operate so skipping that functionality isn’t terrible for the average user. Instead they offer options for people with disabilities which is a distinct group who can’t just adapt and thus a meaningful justification.

[–] sam1714 6 hours ago
You'd end up with pages of options, especially once people realize they can get on the bandwagon.

Disable swears, alcohol, smoking, marijuana, gambling, child abuse and neglect, sensitive East Asian politics, sensitive Middle Eastern politics, WWII politics, Late Ottoman genocides, LGB issues, T issues, global warming, nuclear power, HOA issues, vegetarian issues, vegan issues...

[–] buran77 6 hours ago
I don't blame Apple for trying to straddle the line that makes everyone equally unhappy. But I steer away from autocorrect entirely so I'm not irritated daily by this like others may be.

Talking about autocorrect and irritation, I remember a situation where someone caused a minor international incident by writing that something "caused a lot of irritation". The word they were aiming for before autocorrect chimed in was "iterations" (on a document). I'd rather make my own mistakes than constantly have to fight an autocorrect system.

[–] cite_please 7 hours ago
That’s ok. I’ve already made theguardian.com the bad guy a long time ago so the two cancel out.
[–] Dylan16807 4 hours ago
The problem here isn't a mere lack of suggestion. If it treated that situation as a completely blank context that wouldn't get in the way of typing what you want to type.
[–] roenxi 4 hours ago
I don't even think it is complex; you can say what you like so there isn't a free speech issue here. Users are still going to type what they intended to type. Apple can reasonably have their software avoid making guesses about what users meant to say on charged topics.

It'd be a better if Apple provided a list somewhere for transparency but what they are doing isn't going to cause anyone any trouble.

[–] howunfortunate 3 hours ago
"It's really difficult and frustrating to type anything outside the Overton window, and really easy and seamless to type anything inside the Overton window" is definitely a form of soft censorship worth worrying about IMO.
[–] roenxi 1 hour ago
I am perfectly capable of expressing myself if HN's software allows me to misspell chauvenist and the idea that an iPhone needs a different standard should be totally rejected. That entire line of argument is distracting from the actual problems with censorship - people with power forcing the public discourse into nonsense and lies.

Promoting bad spelling and grammar is not a free speech issue.

[–] zahlman 44 minutes ago
> I am perfectly capable of expressing myself if HN's software allows me to misspell…

This isn't about "promoting bad spelling"; we aren't talking about "misspelled 'bad' words don't get autocorrected". We're talking about a system where you try to type a "bad" word and the system substitutes a "good" word unless/until you override it. Or a system where you effectively choose every word from a menu, and the "bad" words are hidden using UI "dark patterns".

[–] xenator 9 hours ago
Autocomplete should be following the user's own behaviour. If a user thinks that "trans women are men", then it will be not a universal experience, it is just this separated user's own statistics.
[–] hairofadog 8 hours ago
I can imagine that autocompleting following users' behavior could bite people who do a lot of sexting or could reveal other secrets, ex. `the door code is`
[–] howunfortunate 8 hours ago
This is a good solution but you still have to deal with the cold start problem for the ML
[–] throooooo 8 hours ago
Then you just don't suggest anything if there isn't enough data yet. Regardless, auto-complete suggestions is different from what TFA is about.
[–] conception 8 hours ago
Yes, please allow me to have corps not only know everything about me but have a hyper accurate way to know what I’m thinking as well.

Or we could just type the whole sentence we need.

[–] reorder9695 7 hours ago
Futo keyboard on Android has a transformer LM option that uses local ML for text prediction, I've found it to work very well. As far as I'm aware it's completely on device.
[–] SV_BubbleTime 4 hours ago
“Generated entirely on device” seems like an omission that doesn’t cover diagnostic, telemetry, “product improvement” logs.
[–] stavros 6 hours ago
A friend made a keyboard for iOS because he didn't like any of the existing ones, and it doesn't send any data anywhere: https://typeneuma.com
[–] alfjal 8 hours ago
That's asking a lot given the current state of the iOS keyboard.
[–] nostrademons 8 hours ago
It already does this. I've found it'll suggest my kids' names frequently, after just 1-2 letters. It didn't do this before they were born. I assume it's training on my previous messages.
[–] stackghost 7 hours ago
I never understood the memes about autocorrect until I got an iPhone. The keyboard is so much worse than GBoard it’s incredible.
[–] rafram 8 hours ago
> even if Apple could prove these are simply the most common n-gram completions

Tech-illiterate online mobs enraged by Apple “making a statement” will not stick around long enough to hear them argue about n-grams or whatever.

[–] bjourne 7 hours ago
> As another example, imagine if "trans women are" autosuggested "men" or "ugly" for the next prediction.

Or imagine if it auto-completed "the Holocaust is" with "a myth created by the ZOG"! I don't like these "imagine if X was Y" arguments because X isn't Y. Refusing to auto-complete "the occupied territories" (X) is really not the same thing as refusing to auto-complete antisemitism or group-based hate speech (Y). Argue whether X is right or wrong without changing the subject.

[–] howunfortunate 7 hours ago
> I don't like these "imagine if X was Y" arguments because X isn't Y

What you're really saying, perhaps without realizing it, is "I have zero empathy or theory of mind for people who have different views than me"

The whole reason these arguments exist is because power changes hands. If you like a rule only because the person currently wielding power aligns with you, you don't actually like the rule. You just like power.

[–] aucisson_masque 7 hours ago
Most people are not anti semitic.

Most people are not against transsexuals and gays.

There is no reason these kind of suggestions get pushed.

At least in the western civilization, I don’t see why it need to censor anything.

[–] sssilver 4 hours ago
Most people where?

In the Bay Area?

In the United States?

In the Middle East?

In India and China?

All of planet earth?

[–] scratcheee 10 hours ago
An even more generous interpretation (not saying this is the case and a complete excuse, but might explain some of the choices) is that there are some phrases people do not want to type by accident.

“Male chauvinist pig” is something many would be very upset to send to their boss by accident. So it’s perhaps understandable some such phrases are not excluded from the guesswork.

[–] ryandrake 9 hours ago
What I don't understand is how you can type something that is close enough to “Male chauvinist pig” that an uncensored autocorrect will guess it, without intending to type “Male chauvinist pig”. That phrase and others like it, even if one or two letters are wrong or swiped through incorrectly, is unambiguous.
[–] kragen 8 hours ago
Even on a single-word basis, "male" might be make, makes, Maria, Maia, narrow, Maddow, marrow, Mariya, Marita, mafia, males, mallow, Maslow, male's, or masks. "Chauvinist" might be coatings, costing, coaxing, coasting, crating, contingency, contingent, contingencies, chauvinistic, Chauvin, or chaining. "Pig" might be PC, PIC, PCC, pox, poof, PVC, pH, put, pug, PV, Pooh, log, or pub. These are all possibilities that were actually presented when I tried to swipe these words on my Android phone, twice each. Taking into account additional context will broaden this set of possibly confusable words, not narrow it.

We might not talk about a "narrow contingency put" or "Maria crating PVC" very often, but an uncensored autocorrect would almost certainly correct those phrases to the far more common "male chauvinist pig" in the rare cases where someone did try to swipe them.

[–] Arnt 8 hours ago
You can.

Step 1: a word of 4-6 letters that's somewhat close to "male". Say "name" or "masked". Look at the key positions, you'll see what I mean.

Step 2: a word that's even less close to chauvinist, and that makes sense after the word you intended, but no sense after "male", so the guesser picks "chauvinist", based on its incorrect first guess and your second swipe.

Step 3: ditto.

[–] Nevermark 5 hours ago
"Male chauvinist" and "Male chauvinist pig" are related in meaning but not equivalent.

The difference matters enough that preemptively suggesting "pig" is not a desirable "service" for most people.

[–] hnlmorg 6 hours ago
One of my friends is famously bad at texting. She’s even posted antisemitic stuff by accident. This is on Android.

I know these are all typos because she’s a really close friend and easily the last person who would be offensive to other people.

So yes, you’d be surprised at what people can typo on a phone.

[–] makeitdouble 2 hours ago
We already got past that with search engine's auto suggestions for instance. If you Google "Australia is" you'll get a list of suggestions that could be construed as coming from Google, but most people understand it's just from statistics, and those still making a fuss about usually get ignored (political corruption aside).

Sure your client could want to be ultra sure, but I'd argue the censorship coming from a marketing concern doesn't make it specifically better. If I actually use swear words all the time for instance your software would be constantly penalizing me.

That's a tradeoff they're willing to make, but if I was a user it would be totally fair for me to be pissed and hold it against them.

[–] cromka 3 hours ago
This is a very good counterexample, it made me switch from agreeing with OP to disagreeing.
[–] hilbert42 6 hours ago
"The customer's request was: "don't make this software produce swear words on its own". Note: on its own"

I'm against Apple's attempt to meld popular speech into a form that it thinks is acceptable on two accounts—I'm not the fastest typist so when prediction doesn't work the way I want it to it slows me down. Second, I'm in Australia and Australians use very colorful expressions in everday speech that seem to trigger the sensibilities of many delicate American ears. In short, we don't want attempts to censor what we say.

If one has to introduce censorship into prediction then users should have the option of either turning it off or selecting a graded system that best suits their style.

In fact that's not a completely new idea. Eudora email had an option that I rather liked, when selected, users could type whatever they liked then depending on the degree of offense or profanity a series of red chilli icons would appear. Mildly offensive text would bring up an icon with a one-chili warning whereas highly offensive language would automatically trigger a three-chili icon along with a message to the effect "They're burning hot words, do you really want to send this message as is?"

A scheme along these lines seems eminently more sensible than secretly censoring a predictive word list.

[–] simondotau 4 hours ago
If you were relying on Apple to predict your speech in order to speak, then perhaps it isn’t your speech being censored. Speak for yourself; don’t complain that Apple won’t speak for you.
[–] JTbane 3 hours ago
Censorship is dumb but required by a lot of games to avoid higher age ratings. A ridiculous example- my friend tried to name himself "Horse" in Elden Ring but got "**rse". This is the Scunthorpe problem.
[–] zahlman 39 minutes ago
Heh. I was once asked to implement a test version of a system like this. It was reverted after the CEO couldn't log in on the new build and I showed exactly why it was the system's fault.
[–] pests 10 hours ago
Isnt the regular keyboard on iOS typing also probabilistic? I thought the entire claim to fame of the original iPhone keyboard was how it could determine which key you meant based on letter frequency / word usage / etc. Does that mean it can also stop you from typing certain things? So whats the difference between the swipe interpreter and the fat finger interpreter?
[–] Arnt 10 hours ago
A matter of degree.

The regular key-by-key will also do some probabilistic changes. Just less than the swipe interpreter.