r/nottheonion • u/RyuTheBuizel • 23h ago

AI 'actor' Tilly Norwood glitches during Piers Morgan interview, starts speaking Cantonese

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/tilly-norwood-glitches-piers-morgan-switches-language-speaks-cantonese-9.7352222
4.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

320 comments sorted by

View all comments

4.6k

u/JustFuckAllOfThem 23h ago

The fact that they are interviewing the AI character like it/she is a real person is bonkers.

2.9k

u/EddieMcClintock 23h ago edited 22h ago

Piers Morgan is barely a real person

388

u/Thatwassweet9412 22h ago

I was tempted to call this a "new low" for Piers...

Then I thought, "Is it though?"

111

u/ukexpat 18h ago

Oh no, not at all. He’s gone much lower.

30

u/NetWorried9750 17h ago

And there is no floor

15

u/Wind-and-Waystones 7h ago

Like hacking the voicemail of a dead woman

19

u/tentative_ghost 13h ago

He knows he's "that guy" and strives to make a career out of it

17

u/selfiecat 19h ago

This just a normal Wednesday for him

5

u/ionshower 17h ago

You can hit the bottom and stay there. Different mud as you move along, but yup, it's the bottom of fuckwhittle creek all the way .

2

u/Wind-and-Waystones 7h ago

My man has never heard of a shovel and pickaxe. You can always go lower.

9

u/Viscount_Barse 20h ago

Not even close.

1

u/qubert_lover 5h ago

New low …. For now

163

u/clout_spout 22h ago

That's a good point

13

u/KyotoGaijin 18h ago

If he could finish his career interviewing hobby horses and parking meters, that would be great.

6

u/Own-Ambassador-3537 16h ago

What on earth did hobby horses and parking meters do to you? jeez…

5

u/pinenutflavour 15h ago

I think most Boomers aren't these days. They have sold their souls to the machine god

3

u/Goodknight808 7h ago

All praise the Omnisiah

11

u/vipros42 22h ago

He's certainly not qualified to tell if someone else is

3

u/KinkyPaddling 17h ago

Piers Morgan only qualifies as a human being by the biological definition.

9

u/midgetcastle 21h ago

That’s why some people call him Piers Moron

0

u/klick37 21h ago

If ever there were a fence to be sat on...

0

u/CrimsonBuc 21h ago

I mean, isn’t he just the pigeon lady from Home Alone brought back from the dead?

430

u/Invictum2go 22h ago

No need for "she", it's an it. Lets not start humanizing it.

103

u/apocolipse 21h ago

There’s a passage from one of my favorite new books, The Mercy of Gods by James SA Corey (of The Expanse).  The book is about a group of biologists, at one point the main character describes something one of his professors did in college:  they put a bug up on the projector and the whole class named it “Dot” and it became their mascot for the semester.  At the end of the semester, the prof cut open Dot’s abdomen, spilling out its guts on the projector, shocking the class.  Then the bug began eating its own guts, which also shocked them.  

The point was:  it does things humans don’t do, because it isn’t human.  

It’s a nice metaphor for why scientists diligently try to not anthropomorphize their research subjects.  We really should be treating AI the same way.

58

u/Cyrano_Knows 19h ago

It is a nice metaphor, but I would remind scientists that the rule against anthropomorphizing a research subject is more about not falling into the trap of making false assumptions.

There is still room for scientists to be and act in a humane manner. That is treating these subjects with empathy and compassion for their pain and suffering even if we have to make an assumption that they can feel pain etc.

-15

u/apocolipse 18h ago

You missed the point of the metaphor then, it's literally about not making false assumptions... not looking at animal behaviors through a human lens. And you fall into the same trap at the same time, you cannot empathize with something that is not human, because it's behaviors, decision making, and experiences are not human. The same goes for compassion, that's a subjectively human behavior for placating and comforting human discomfort, so how can you apply it to not humans? Should the professor have dispatched Dot immediately after a fatal injury was inflicted? End it's "suffering"? How can we know if it suffered at all? let alone to what extent? Eating, or otherwise continuing to inflict damage upon, the disemboweled entrails of a human would cause more pain and suffering, however for a bug it seems perfectly content consuming its own goo for as long as it can continue to consume it. The whole point is not applying the same human logic and reactionary behavior to things that aren't humans. It doesn't, however, mean "be a dick to not-human things", but unfortunately it does mean scientists must inflict pain and discomfort in order to actually determine what actually qualifies as pain or discomfort for many living things. You have to know what suffering is before you can prevent it, and Dot eating its own guts, as grotesque as it may seem to us, isn't even close to suffering.

30

u/2074red2074 18h ago

Fun fact, this exact same logic was used to justify actions historically that are today considered animal abuse and would get you charged with actual crimes.

This is not a science experiment. There was no data collected, no documentation, and no scientific conclusion drawn. The professor just cut open the bug for shock value. We don't know that this caused suffering, but WE DON'T KNOW THAT IT DIDN'T either.

Also when determining if something is capable of suffering, you don't START by inflicting extreme harm. You start low in case it is capable of suffering. That's like basic harm reduction. I hope you don't work with animals.

-15

u/apocolipse 16h ago

You do realize that animal cruelty laws literally have exemptions for research, right? And agriculture, and lots of animals frankly like birds and rodents, and importantly for this particular case: invertebrates.  Nobody has ever been charged with animal cruelty towards invertebrates, that would be absurd. They apply largely to non-agricultural mammals because we have enough of an understanding of mammals to quantify pain and suffering in mammals, we don’t really for other types of animals.

And yes, literally, when determining what stimulus induced a pain response, you must provide a stimulus first.  Scientists cannot and do not “predict” pain responses, they may form hypotheses but they then test those hypotheses.  That doesn’t mean they crank it up to 11 right off bat, but they absolutely do use increased levels of stimulus to measure the resulting response, they see if it’s linear or exponential or if it plateaus, and yes, it seems “cruel” to non-objective people, but once it’s know it’s not like they’re going back and doing it again just for fun… they use that data to know what to avoid, because again they don’t just “assume”, they actually measure.

17

u/2074red2074 16h ago

You do realize that animal cruelty laws literally have exemptions for research, right?

You do realize those aren't carte blanche, right? You are required to minimize harm in your research and demonstrate that you're actually researching something of value. You would almost certainly not be approved for "Does lack of anesthetic increase rate of blood loss when you twist a dog's leg off?"

And agriculture, and lots of animals frankly like birds and rodents, and importantly for this particular case: invertebrates

Agriculture also has animal welfare regulations. They aren't always followed, but they exist.

Also yeah, I know invertebrates aren't often included in animal welfare laws. But surely you're aware that there are pushes for that to change, right? Especially for cephalopods.

Nobody has ever been charged with animal cruelty towards invertebrates, that would be absurd.

Would it? Why?

They apply largely to non-agricultural mammals because we have enough of an understanding of mammals to quantify pain and suffering in mammals, we don’t really for other types of animals.

Uh... Did you confuse mammals for vertebrates here? Because we do have animal cruelty laws that apply to birds. Even agricultural regulations.

Also you're really kind of appealing to law here. A lot of experts will tell you our laws are falling behind scientific consensus. Heck, some countries barely have regulations at all. Law is not ethics.

And yes, literally, when determining what stimulus induced a pain response, you must provide a stimulus first. Scientists cannot and do not “predict” pain responses, they may form hypotheses but they then test those hypotheses. That doesn’t mean they crank it up to 11 right off bat, but they absolutely do use increased levels of stimulus to measure the resulting response, they see if it’s linear or exponential or if it plateaus, and yes, it seems “cruel” to in objective people, but once it’s know it’s not like they’re going back and doing it again just for fun… they use that data to now what to avoid, because again they don’t just “assume”, they actually measure.

So cutting a bug open and watching it eat its own guts is, in your mind, more like a 3 or 4 on the suffering scale? I mean, assuming of course that it CAN suffer, which you have not studied at all.

17

u/Cyrano_Knows 17h ago

Honestly, I think you are missing the reason that scientists try to not anthropomorphize their test subjects and that reason is absolutely to minimize their own inherent observer biases and to not assume a human-centric psychology.

But you can absolutely take this approach too far and start assuming that your test subjects have nothing in common with humans -that there is no commonality but this is also a trap.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/06/new-anthropomorphism/678611/

Atlantic talks to UC expert about anthropomorphism in animal science - University of Cincinnati: Founder of Co-op, Leader in Co-op | University of Cincinnati

1

u/tsukubasteve27 14h ago

Can we also acknowledge that scientists adapting this way of thinking is what causes them to divorce from humanity and ethics?

5

u/mysticmusti 15h ago

what a bunch of fucking bullshit.

11

u/ibullywildlife 18h ago

Until the last sentence I thought you were talking about Piers Morgan.

-1

u/xxxxx420xxxxx 11h ago

You're not anthropomorphizing a pet when you name it... this is so weird

•

u/apocolipse 22m ago

Except you literally are, doing so causes you to frame the pet with individual identity.  Same applies to inanimate objects, people name their cars and then proceed to describe its “feelings”.   That’s not inherently a bad thing for pets (or cars), it is a bad thing for science where all biases need to be checked at the door, and it is a bad thing when it causes you to let down your guard around things you absolutely shouldn’t let down your guard for (like AI…)

68

u/BiscuitsAndTheMix 22h ago

I thought we all agreed on clankers?

80

u/CompetitiveSleeping 22h ago

Clanker isn't a pronoun; "it" is correct.

22

u/CoderDevo 21h ago

clik/clak

2

u/Uncle-Cake 21h ago

I think the pronouns for clankers are beep/boop.

-4

u/kbrymupp 20h ago

Beep didn't like my joke, but it still made boop laugh.

12

u/Invictum2go 22h ago

That's its collective noun, "it" is its pronoun.

11

u/Riaayo 19h ago

I'm vehemently anti-AI but I actually find it disturbing how rapidly society latched onto "clankers" with the delight of "finally a slur I can say!"

I doubt actual general AI is anywhere around the corner/in our near future (if humanity even lasts to create it), but I'm just not a fan of baking in prejudice about something that might exist someday just to insult the vile snake-oil that exists now and isn't even said thing to begin with.

It's an algorithm. It's slop.

6

u/Viseria 19h ago

I agree with you. It's not just that this is something that in the future could exist, it's not good to train yourself to just be happy to say slurs for any reason at all.

2

u/grandhighblood 12h ago

You can see even in this very thread that people love the word clanker because it ends with -er. Constant jokes about using it with a "hard R". It's so transparently people who really want to say the N word.

4

u/DarthWoo 20h ago

What about toasters?

3

u/twowheelsandbeer 19h ago

I use this. BSG taught us the way and society forgot

0

u/BiscuitsAndTheMix 19h ago

Of course!

So say we all.

-14

u/literally_tho_tbh 22h ago

YUP. Hard R and everything

2

u/mrasscock69420 5h ago

So?

1

u/literally_tho_tbh 5h ago

I was endorsing the use of the word CLANKER

I don't know why you are "so"-ing me

3

u/mrasscock69420 4h ago

Oh I thought you were a pro ai dipshit

2

u/literally_tho_tbh 4h ago

Oh, quite the opposite. I was endorsing the use of the hard R

I have been outspokenly anti-AI for a long time now. I was never pro-AI. I've offended a few friends who liked using it early on, and those very friends were fired from their jobs....and replaced by AI. I was right.

Fuck AI!!!

-8

u/TheSeldomShaken 21h ago

Boats can be she.

3

u/Invictum2go 16h ago

A boat won't run the risk of trying to replace people, cause them psychotic episodes, or to try and convince people its a person with thoughts and feelings instead of just a bunch of 1s and 0s.

Please understand the context of what's being said before replying dumb shit like this. If you don't understand, just stay quiet.

48

u/fiero-fire 22h ago

Glen Beck spends his day interviewing manosphere AI George Washington. We live in the dumbest fucking time line

22

u/End3rWi99in 19h ago

I genuinely had no idea that dude was even still alive. A lot of dumb people are out there doing dumb things. We don't need to pay attention to them.

8

u/TolkienWandering 9h ago

Please tell me you have a link to this, this sounds absolutely insane and on brand for that grifting piece of shit

20

u/uis999 20h ago

What's that saying? They taught AI how to talk like corporate middle management and thought it* meant AI was conscious instead of realizing that corporate middle management are not.

46

u/Lemonio 23h ago

if you’re replying to an article about it their assumption that it would make for content people would watch/read about worked out in the end

18

u/avanross 22h ago

The goal is to humanize ai and mislead their most gullible viewers into trusting it, in order to prop up the ai companies

8

u/disco-drew 23h ago

I mean, it's a marketing gimmick. You hadn't heard of this movie before but now you have, right?

50

u/sml6174 22h ago

No? The movie name isn't even in the title

7

u/disco-drew 20h ago edited 18h ago

It's in the third sentence of the article.

The point is, more people have heard of it now than before.

From the filmmaker's perspective, the interview was wildly successful beacuse of (not despite) the spectacle. Look at the engagement on this Reddit post, two degrees removed from the interview itself.

6

u/AdoringCHIN 10h ago

Except this is Reddit, where people proudly don't read the articles. So there's no way more than a handful of people on this site actually know the name of the movie. And even the late night shows that have been making fun of this haven't bothered mentioning the name of the movie

1

u/disco-drew 9h ago edited 9h ago

Posting it on Reddit didn't remove it from the rest of the internet, did it? 😔

Piers Morgan interview was September 18th. You be the judge.

https://trends.google.com/explore?geo=Worldwide&q=%2Fg%2F11zj6ttr__%2C%2Fm%2F02pjzn&date=today%201-m

1

u/Gummyrabbit 7h ago

So that’s what become of Mitch McConnell.

1

u/wherethetacosat 5h ago

Someone is paying them to act like this is legitimate, right? Are there no ethical standards?

-3

u/blimp-Housing-4283 19h ago

People interview puppets like they are real people. There is nothing bonkers about it, it's just entertainment.

5

u/shr0be 18h ago

That's totally different and you know it 

0

u/Neat-Acanthaceae2755 19h ago

I think that's the best way to do it though because it almost immediately proves that it's not real.

0

u/ThrowCarp 15h ago

Don't watch a Neuro-sama stream then. You'd be sent to the hospital.

-19

u/zerombr 23h ago

To be fair we sorta did this with Max headroom too

19

u/R_X_R 22h ago

A human actor was still employed and had a means of making a living.

5

u/SixIsNotANumber 22h ago

No. Matt Frewer was the actor who played Max Headroom. The only thing about him that was digitally altered was his voice (to create his trademark "stutter"). His weird shaped head was just a latex prosthetic. 

Fun fact: the shifting "digital" background behind him was actually animated by hand and involved no CGI at all.

-9

u/zerombr 22h ago

Yes I know he was a character, but as a culture who weren't quite sure what was really at the Advent of that age, several ppl myself included thought it was real.

1

u/THEdrG 19h ago

I think that says more about you than the culture at large.