5 ms·

I've had autocomplete seem to deliberately try to break me up with my girlfriend. I don't have time to dig up the most egregious of those. Here's one that happe

I've had autocomplete seem to deliberately try to break me up with my girlfriend. I don't have time to dig up the most egregious of those. Here's one that happened just yesterday with my wife: Wife: Thank you. Love you too. Me: Are you going to be honest nary? Me: Hungry Me: Darn spell check! My wife, having grown up in China, still didn't understand and I had some 'splainin to do when I got home. It's absolutely terrible when I've typed exactly what I want, but then the autocorrect substitution happens just before I press send. There's something that seems infuriatingly patronizing about this.

fjsolwmv 9y ago
Remember this story? A Cellphone's Missing Dot Kills Two People, Puts Three More in Jail https://gizmodo.com/382026/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-two-people-puts-three-more-in-jail https://gizmodo.com/382026/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-tw...
- emodendroket 9y ago
  No, but I remember this one, where a court determined "give me a lawyer dog" meant "give me a lawyer-dog" rather than "give me a lawyer, dog" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5d536fa55673 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
  - kolpa 9y ago
    That article is almost certainly wrong, or at least misleading. The question at hand was whether this statement was a direct request for a counsel, or just chatter. "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The court decided " (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 1 2 statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel". There's a little bit of cultural bias in the "dog" part, but the main thrust is that the defendant didn't make a clear statement of invocation. IMO the law as it stands is horrid -- legal representation should be the default unless explicitly waived, not the reverse, but under the current law the decision turned on whether that statements was a demand for a lawyer or merely a suggestion. http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I don't understand your objection. As you've quoted, from that decision, the judgment refers to an "ambiguous and equivocal reference to a 'lawyer dog,'" which pretty plainly suggests that the judge has deemed "lawyer-dog" a lexical unit rather than interpreting "dog" as a sobriquet. At best you could say it was only part of his reasoning; either way, in my mind, it goes beyond cultural bias to be a patently absurd reading.
- pluma 9y ago
  That title is atrocious, though. The cellphone didn't kill anyone, this is basically an "honor killing".
  - kolpa 9y ago
    Right, but the honor-killing was triggered by a miscommunication due to the phone's poor ability to transmit language.
    - pluma 9y ago
      If a simple typo was enough to trigger the honor-killing, it's disingenuous to look for anyone to blame but the murderer himself. If a German doctor texts someone "Ich verabreiche Schmerzmittel an meine Patienten nur in Massen" (I only apply painkillers to my patients en masse) because the phone doesn't support the sharp S (which would have changed the meaning from "a very large amount" to the opposite) and the recipient kills him out of concern that he's intentionally overdosing his patients, you wouldn't try to excuse the murderer by blaming the technology for that act of reckless and misdirected vigilantism, would you? Humans make mistakes. Software makes mistakes. If you decide to murder someone based on a single sentence in writing, that's all on you.
mseebach 9y ago
Honest question, this seems to be a long term issue for you, why don't you disable autocorrect? I've found that the "half-way house" of seeing the suggestions, but having to manually select the one you want, is a good compromise.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  I think I'll do that. Actually, I think I did do that, and somehow it came back.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Remember this story? A Cellphone's Missing Dot Kills Two People, Puts Three More in Jail https://gizmodo.com/382026/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-two-people-puts-three-more-in-jail https://gizmodo.com/382026/a-cellphones-missing-dot-kills-tw...

emodendroket 9y ago
No, but I remember this one, where a court determined "give me a lawyer dog" meant "give me a lawyer-dog" rather than "give me a lawyer, dog" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5d536fa55673 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02...
- kolpa 9y ago
  That article is almost certainly wrong, or at least misleading. The question at hand was whether this statement was a direct request for a counsel, or just chatter. "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The court decided " (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 1 2 statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel". There's a little bit of cultural bias in the "dog" part, but the main thrust is that the defendant didn't make a clear statement of invocation. IMO the law as it stands is horrid -- legal representation should be the default unless explicitly waived, not the reverse, but under the current law the decision turned on whether that statements was a demand for a lawyer or merely a suggestion. http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    I don't understand your objection. As you've quoted, from that decision, the judgment refers to an "ambiguous and equivocal reference to a 'lawyer dog,'" which pretty plainly suggests that the judge has deemed "lawyer-dog" a lexical unit rather than interpreting "dog" as a sobriquet. At best you could say it was only part of his reasoning; either way, in my mind, it goes beyond cultural bias to be a patently absurd reading.
pluma 9y ago
That title is atrocious, though. The cellphone didn't kill anyone, this is basically an "honor killing".
- kolpa 9y ago
  Right, but the honor-killing was triggered by a miscommunication due to the phone's poor ability to transmit language.
  - pluma 9y ago
    If a simple typo was enough to trigger the honor-killing, it's disingenuous to look for anyone to blame but the murderer himself. If a German doctor texts someone "Ich verabreiche Schmerzmittel an meine Patienten nur in Massen" (I only apply painkillers to my patients en masse) because the phone doesn't support the sharp S (which would have changed the meaning from "a very large amount" to the opposite) and the recipient kills him out of concern that he's intentionally overdosing his patients, you wouldn't try to excuse the murderer by blaming the technology for that act of reckless and misdirected vigilantism, would you? Humans make mistakes. Software makes mistakes. If you decide to murder someone based on a single sentence in writing, that's all on you.

mseebach 9y ago

Honest question, this seems to be a long term issue for you, why don't you disable autocorrect? I've found that the "half-way house" of seeing the suggestions, but having to manually select the one you want, is a good compromise.

stcredzero 9y ago
I think I'll do that. Actually, I think I did do that, and somehow it came back.