MrMeritology
Context: my blog posts are meant to contrast with "experts" who claimed that poisoning social AI was just in the nature of learning systems, even when they worked as designed (i.e. had no defects). They are claiming that Tay learned to be foul mouthed and racist, and thus had become foul mouthed and racist.
If that were true, then this undesirable behavior would not be a software QA problem. The AI would be working as designed. No QA process would change things.
In contrast, I'm claiming (from evidence) that the main problem in Tay is due to a hidden feature in a reused library + rule set that should have been detected and removed in a QA process that considered various attacks. BTW, this attack (getting bot to repeat naughty words) has been around since ELIZA in the 60s.
The other failings of Tay (esp. no black list) are design and requirement failures, not QA failures.
http://exploringpossibilityspace.blogspot.com/2016/03/micros...
I call it "poor software QA" because, generally, the software QA process is supposed to detect and prevent defects from 1) being introduced in the first place; and 2) from being propagated into "production" versions. As my most recent post shows, the "repeat after me" rule was a legacy of a software library (ALICE) they used to implement rule-based behavior. Some sort of QA process should have been done on the rule set they reused and modified.
Also, when I say "QA" I am not referring only to people with QA in their job title. I'm referring to the process.