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
[–] briandw 7 hours ago
[–] armchairhacker 5 minutes ago
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
- [ ] Disable autocomplete swear filter.
But finely grained options are not Apple’s way.
[–] Retric 2 hours ago
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
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
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
[–] Dylan16807 4 hours ago
[–] roenxi 4 hours ago
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
[–] roenxi 1 hour ago
Promoting bad spelling and grammar is not a free speech issue.
[–] zahlman 44 minutes ago
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
[–] hairofadog 8 hours ago
[–] howunfortunate 8 hours ago
[–] throooooo 8 hours ago
[–] conception 8 hours ago
Or we could just type the whole sentence we need.
[–] reorder9695 7 hours ago
[–] SV_BubbleTime 4 hours ago
[–] stavros 6 hours ago
[–] alfjal 8 hours ago
[–] nostrademons 8 hours ago
[–] stackghost 7 hours ago
[–] rafram 8 hours ago
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
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
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 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
In the Bay Area?
In the United States?
In the Middle East?
In India and China?
All of planet earth?
[–] scratcheee 10 hours ago
“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
[–] kragen 8 hours ago
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
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
The difference matters enough that preemptively suggesting "pig" is not a desirable "service" for most people.
[–] hnlmorg 6 hours ago
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
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
[–] hilbert42 6 hours ago
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
[–] JTbane 3 hours ago
[–] zahlman 39 minutes ago
[–] pests 10 hours ago
[–] Arnt 10 hours ago
The regular key-by-key will also do some probabilistic changes. Just less than the swipe interpreter.
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.