I'd really like to see the passing transcripts from this test, but, I'm not expecting to be blown away.
I was introduced to Kevin Warwick's writing in a course on technology in society about 10 years ago. He was making a big fuss about having made himself a cyborg by implanting an RFID tag in his arm. My ex-trucker next door neighbor, who had a cochlear implant, was a much more impressive example of cybernetics by my estimation, and far less insufferably attention seeking.
My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
61–70 of 81 posts
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#62For fun I ran Eugene against Eliza to see what sort of nonsense it would come back with. Below is a quick extract of the "conversation" Eliza: Is it important to you that your attitude to I ? Eugene: It is highly possible. It is highly possible. Eliza: Lets discuss further why your feelings right now. Eugene: Just because 2 plus 2 is 5! Wonna ask me something more? Eliza: Don't any other reasons come to mind ? Eugene…
It would be interesting to run the AI against itself and have each version try to determine if the other is an AI.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#63I had an actual conversation with Eugene Goostman as if I was meeting a 13 year old from the Ukraine. And Eugene nailed it. He introduced himself, ask me polite questions, I asked him polite questions, and we developed a slightly broken conversation, but yes, a conversation. The idea of this is not "try to break the robot", the idea is "if you ran into this robot in real life and it was masquerading as a human, would…
Will he pass the Voigt-Kampff?
>>A tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun beating its legs trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help, but you're not helping. Why is that?
+Possibly you are right. You aren't the first one who tell me that. Oh, what a fruitful conversation;-)
>>Describe in single words, only the good things that come in to your mind about: your mother.
+My mother works on the Odessa TV and runs a popular program for teenagers "Speak Russian right!" Every Odessian teenager heard her famous "For those putzs who schmooze Russian in a goddam lame way: drop by and listen to mine!"
>>It's your birthday. Someone gives you a calfskin wallet.
+Did I forget it or you really haven't told me about the place you are from?
>>You've got a little boy. He shows you his butterfly collection plus the killing jar.
+Stop talking about death! I fell like in a funeral agency! Wonna ask me something more?
>>You're watching television. Suddenly you realise there's a wasp crawling on your arm.
+In our country TV is pretty boring. Mostly news and old Soviet movies...
>>You're reading a magazine. You come across a full-page nude photo of a girl.
+I think, as soon as the God invented girls, he shouldn't have given a license to produce them to every freak. Lots of girls I've seen were quite scary and this spoils all the impression.
>>Just answer the questions, please. You show it to your husband. He likes it so much he hangs it on your bedroom wall.
+Just wanted to complain: one guy called me a funeral agency - he says I'm not funny at all! I think he is a funeral agency himself.
>>One more question. You're watching a stage play. A banquet is in progress. The guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled dog.
+boiled? Yes, I can eat it. Why?
I think it's time to call the Bladerunner...
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#64For fun I ran Eugene against Eliza to see what sort of nonsense it would come back with. Below is a quick extract of the "conversation" Eliza: Is it important to you that your attitude to I ? Eugene: It is highly possible. It is highly possible. Eliza: Lets discuss further why your feelings right now. Eugene: Just because 2 plus 2 is 5! Wonna ask me something more? Eliza: Don't any other reasons come to mind ? Eugene…
It would be interesting to run the AI against itself and have each version try to determine if the other is an AI.
That would actually be far more interesting than any of this nonsense. To try to determine whether the thing you're talking to is a bot or not, you have to construct some kind of model of it – try to explain its behavior. The ability to explain things is a genuine hallmark of intelligence, so building things that can try to model and explain the world around them would be real AI research.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#65I had an actual conversation with Eugene Goostman as if I was meeting a 13 year old from the Ukraine. And Eugene nailed it. He introduced himself, ask me polite questions, I asked him polite questions, and we developed a slightly broken conversation, but yes, a conversation. The idea of this is not "try to break the robot", the idea is "if you ran into this robot in real life and it was masquerading as a human, would…
How many legs on a camel? Seems like a question a 13 year old in any country could answer.
Similarly, if you ask it something that requires human knowledge to answer, even child like human knowledge, chatbot's don't ever have good answers. For example, I ask:
If I drop a pencil, what will happen?
- Um... it falls?
- It bounces on it's rubber tip
- It drops
Eugene Goostman replies:
I have to think about that some more :-)) Was that a fruitful conversation?
I didn't say you don't have a head.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the machine can "deceive" you into thinking it's doing work, then it's doing work. It doesn't matter if there's a man who speaks Chinese in the room, or if there's a bunch of rulebooks about Chinese, they're functionally equivalent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
The difference between an employee doing work and one deceiving you into thinking they're doing work is simple: one produces value, the other does not. Here, no useful information can be extracted from this Eugene chatbot. It cannot perform any useful task a human could perform or answer any useful question a human could answer. Which is what I was talking about when I mentioned usefulness. As a side note, I recently…
Define "useful"
I bet a black hat SEO optimizer would find tons of auto generated content very useful. That kind of content is designed exactly to deceive both users and search bots that it is of value.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#67There is nothing about Eugene that is useful to the advancement of actual AI, to our understanding of intelligence. Advanced chatbots are a parlor trick, the same way that rabbit and hat tricks do not help us develop actual teleportation systems, however clever and convincing they might seem to credulous people. The difference between a trick and a technology, of course, is usefulness. Can your software do something…
If the machine can "deceive" you into thinking it's doing work, then it's doing work. It doesn't matter if there's a man who speaks Chinese in the room, or if there's a bunch of rulebooks about Chinese, they're functionally equivalent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
The point is that building chatbots doesn't get us any closer to being able to create a Chinese Room – Eugene isn't anything like a Chinese room, it's just a cheap imitation of one that doesn't fool anyone savvy, as Aaronson's post shows. Nor is there any reason to think that building more chatbots like Eugene will get us any closer to a Chinese Room.
Also, you do realize that Searle proposed the Chinese Room thought experiment to argue against the position you're taking, right?
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#68The entire Turing test claim is Kevin Warwick's media hype. He issues a press release to this effect approximately annually. Basically, the way to tell if a claim related to artificial intelligence is rubbish is to search for the name "Kevin Warwick". This is what I wrote for his 2008 effort: http://newstechnica.com/2008/10/13/turing-test-won-with-arti...
You know, writing a chatbot that could pass the turing test might actually be very easy if you make it act like a deranged Internet troll. To make a chatbot that imitates someone specific might be easier still; I wish no ill-will to TempleOS (formerly Losethos), but I think I could quite easily write a bot that was indistinguishable from him.
Writing an RMS chatbot would be exceedingly easy. Now that I think about it, it's entirely possible that someone at MIT already did that and I fell for it by arguing with it on the csail-related list last month.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#69A twist on the Turing Test that would be fun. Drop in 19 people and 1 AI into a chatroom, and then try to determine who is the AI. A lot of these adversarial questions may come off looking more like an aggressive AI than a human.
Maybe format it like Mafia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_(party_game). Instead of an informed Mafia trying to survive, you have an informed group of AIs.
Each player can TALK, NOMINATE, and VOTE when a vote is called. AIs know who the other AIs are. Humans do not know who is AI and who is Human. Once per round, AIs eliminate a human through consensus in a secret conversation. Then, in an open forum, all participants can talk and nominate other players for elimination. After a nomination, there is discussion and then a vote. If the majority votes in favor of elimination, the player is eliminated.
The Humans win when all AI are eliminated. The AI wins when the Humans no longer have a majority.
Re: My Conversation with “Eugene Goostman”
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy for a simple bot to refer to his own previous questions. Not much harder to refer to something the other side said too. So the only thing that remains seems to be claim that the reply of the other side has some sense.
His commentary about the previous question included analysis of the other side's answer (that it was not only wrong, but evasive and obviously computer generated), so I think that remains a valid point. I don't see Goostman providing similar analysis.
It was already shown that attacking the other side (even claiming that this other is the computer) is a good bot practice. So even there Scott can't obviously score. Analysis it ain't, is just "it's the first sensitive thing you say" and "it's the second sensitive thing you say." You, as the human involved in chatting with bots and humans in parallel, would have to evaluate the probability that the particular statement is actually only sensitive thing etc. Without the hindsight and knowing that offensive behavior is very bot-like, it's harder than you imagine.
A lot of human behaviors online can in fact be replaced by scripts. There's even a T-shirt:
http://www.kleargear.com/1474.html
"Go Away Or I Will Replace You With A Very Small Shell Script"