Chatbot love dating
There’s a delicate balance as you get to know someone new… Everyone struggles with these questions, but adding OCD into the mix can take this struggle to the next level.
Will this person accept me when I reveal who I really am?
Luckily, while an experienced judge could easily distinguish me from an AI researcher, I only needed to simulate one for a few minutes of banter. Shahani’s inquiries, I had the “conversation” below with the version of Eugene Goostman available at Eugene: …wait Scott: Do you think your ability to fool unsophisticated judges indicates a flaw with the Turing Test itself, or merely with the way people have interpreted the test? He knows all hidden reasons of human-beings’ life and behavior.
It’s possible that there’s a more recent version somewhere else, but this is the only version I was able to access. Eugene: The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Scott: Do you think Alan Turing, brilliant though he was, had trouble imagining that the judges of his “imitation game” wouldn’t think to ask commonsense questions like the ones above—or that, if they did, they’d actually accept evasion or irrelevant banter as answers? I don’t think alan turing brilliant although this guy was had trouble imagining that the judges of his imitation game would not consider to Oooh. Scott: In your opinion, does your existence demonstrate any idea or principle that wasn’t demonstrated just as convincingly by ELIZA, Joseph Weizenbaum’s chatbot from the 1960s? All the bots after it were nothing but weak parodies, claiming to have “revolutionary improvements”. Scott: OK, I’ll count that as the second sensible thing you’ve said (grading generously).
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Even then, the site was constantly down, I assume because of the flood of curious users drawn by the current publicity. Scott: Hey, that’s the first sensible thing you’ve said! Don’t you think that a more convincing chatbot could be created, by using Google to trawl the entire web for plausible-sounding answers (analogous to what IBM’s Watson did)? Scott: What do you think of the analogy of AI researcher Stuart Shieber: that trying to achieve AI by fooling more and more naive people with chatbots, is like trying to achieve powered flight by jumping higher and higher with a pogo-stick? I guess you mean that stupid joke about a blonde who dyed her hair!
Scott: Which is bigger, a shoebox or Mount Everest? Eugene: Yes, I do think that a more convincing chatbot can be built by using google to trawl the all web for plausible – sounding – I hope I have right to have my own opinion. Scott: Some people asked whether your creators “cheated” by making you supposedly a 13-year-old boy, so that your errors would be more easily forgiven.
But OK, just in case anyone doubts my humanity, here’s my answer to Eugene, together with his response: Me: Not that I’m the one being tested, but I’m a theoretical computer scientist. He’s under no delusions whatsoever about his fun and entertaining creation standing any chance against a serious interrogator.
He comments: “Conditions of the contest made it simpler …