51–60 of 69 posts
Tl;dr the bot doesn't actually find out the other is an AI, but happens to randomly comment 'You are a robot'. It's all Eliza-style non-sequiturs and canned responses. These bots don't even have internal state that would qualify as 'having found out something'. It's mildly amusing in a funny-coincidence sort of way and nothing more.
An interesting angle of a chatbot's style can be seen if we initiate a conversation between two instances of tha same bot. (something like an eigenvalue) jabberwacky is a bit 'meta' (his thoughts are centered around the concept of intelligence), splotchy is a bit more 'cool', but none of them is too intelligent: * * jabberwacky vs. jabberwacky * * Are you intelligent? Yes, I am intelligent. Yes. Who do you think is s…
You can read more about it here: http://www.thepursuitofquality.com/post/1/the-pursuit-of-art...
Or if you're just interested in the code: https://github.com/gavingmiller/joan-wrapper
Tl;dr the bot doesn't actually find out the other is an AI, but happens to randomly comment 'You are a robot'. It's all Eliza-style non-sequiturs and canned responses. These bots don't even have internal state that would qualify as 'having found out something'. It's mildly amusing in a funny-coincidence sort of way and nothing more.
It would be great if I never had to see another eliza. If it can't string more than 2 utterances together, its not AI, it certainly doesnt pass the Turing test, and its a waste of time.
-Eliza
I love this part: splotchy ==> Your conversation skills are better than average jabberwacky ==> Your conversation skills should be shot.
In particular, splotchy makes a number of "conversational skills" comments and for most of them jabberwacky comes back with a zinger.
Did anyone else read this mentally in the voice of Orson Welles/The Brain?
As I see it, the goal of AI should not be limited to mimicking human ways of thinking, instead it should aim at blessing the program the ability to learn and evolve. In the latter case, it is reasonable to expect the internal generated intelligence could go beyond the expectations of its human creator. Again, I don't know if anybody has done it before; but it seems a good idea to me.
This was the motivation for my original experiment, glad so many people liked it.
Yo momma jokes are still never appropriate, even for bots.
Tl;dr the bot doesn't actually find out the other is an AI, but happens to randomly comment 'You are a robot'. It's all Eliza-style non-sequiturs and canned responses. These bots don't even have internal state that would qualify as 'having found out something'. It's mildly amusing in a funny-coincidence sort of way and nothing more.
It would be great if I never had to see another eliza. If it can't string more than 2 utterances together, its not AI, it certainly doesnt pass the Turing test, and its a waste of time.
It has turned out that in practice, bots that "can't string more than 2 utterances together" in fact can pass the (reduced) Turing test when put online and made available to random people. People have been seen to spend hours talking to these bots with no apparent sign that they know they are talking to a bot.
"Not AI" and "waste of time" I'll agree with, but "doesn't pass the Turing test" is much less clear.
(Many have observed how every time AI sort of creeps up on something we define it as not-AI, but in the case of conversational "AIs" it turns out that it really is the case that blindingly stupid programs can pass it. Full props to Turing for the idea, no sarcasm, great paper fully worthy of its historic status, but it hasn't turned out to be quite as powerful a discriminator as we might have hoped.)