Slashdot Mirror
How I Failed the Turing Test
chrisjrn writes "I stubled across this article today, detailing a man's experiences of being added to AIM Screen Name lists - one full of "celebrities" and the other full of "Sex Bots" (he was, of course, neither of these).
Raises a few questions as to how easy it is to get a hold of your screenname, and also of the effectiveness of the Turing Test for AI, in the online world. Or is it just that people aren't bothered trying to tell the humans apart anymore?" Also, it's funny. Don't try to read anything deep into it.
It's that the dialog of a typical IM user can't be distinguished from a brain-dead conversation bot...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Funny are does who go and talk to a sex bot and say "are you sure your a bot" ?
There is nothing new or newsworthy about stupid people, CmdrTaco. The world is full of utter morons!
I'll believe in AI when a robot can tie shoelaces. Mimicking conversation is nice and well, but as far as robotics goes, we've yet to see anything remotely resembling artificial intelligence in action.
Maybe the coral could help.
--
Superb hosting 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, $7,95.
Kunowalls!!! Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).
Hosting 20G hd, 1Tb bw! ssh $7.95
stuble, v. To edit with indifference.
Well, this article shows that at last we came to the point where a bot is comparable to a human being at a chat room. In fact, we didn't get to this point with better AI, but with worse RI (real intelligence, if the term applies to this case).
Ladies and Gentleman: a completely insensitive and unintelligen bot can be more interesting to chat with than a human! Well, at least they write correctly (N07 L@M3 @SS).
Seriously though, for a site that has poored thousands of hours into developing its backend, how difficult would it be to ensure that the link is always cached before posting it?
whoever modded me Flamebait obviously has no sence of humor :)
maybe I was aiming a little high with that one...
I for one, welcome our new sex bots overlords.
Google for sex bots and look at the first link. It's an article that he wrote, and his screen name is in it.
By some day, I think I meant around 1999 or so.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Forget genetic discrimination in the future, I can't even farking sign up for slashdot anymore. Soon I won't be able to get my welfare check because of these stupid turing tests!
Isn't this sort of what the article about captchas a few days back was?
Most AI today is extremely specialized. It's not hard to design something that appears to think, if it only has to check for 3 cases.
The problem with speech is that assumming all humans use perfect rules, which they don't, and assuming all computers know the perfect rules, which they don't as well, creates a logistical nightmare. Computers work well with numbers.
Did he say hi? Yes he did, so let's say hi back.
It is really hard to design a bot that would actually analyze what they are saying.
Did he say hi? Yes, he greeted me with a "hello" "Hello to you too."
My favourite snippet has to be:
jmstriegel: no, really. I'm quite human.jmstriegel: test me if you want
shymuffin32: ok
shymuffin32: why do you like music?
jmstriegel: hmm. i've never really considered that.
jmstriegel: hell, i'm not going to be able to contrive a good answer for that one. ask me something else.
shymuffin32: jeesus, you're worse than eliza
It's not him that's stupid (as claimed elsewhere), it's these shymuffin32 morons.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Obviously a moderator here has never used chatbots.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
... from those buddies on your list. I really fail to see exactly what the "security" risk is here - if you're hypersensitive about the people messaging you, then you can choose to be hypersensitive, lose some functionality and turn off the "randomness" factor. Most people exchange IM names through some other means of communications, either verbally or written, so this loss of functionality can be sidestepped while maintaining your online secrecy.
Hagrin.com
that really is a clever passage.
What people should remember is that the turing test requires that the inquistor is competent. If the inquisitor is not (i.e. random AIM idiots), then the test isn't vaild, cause these people can't tell intelligences apart anyway. Also, the inquisitor is supposed to convince themselves via sufficient interaction w/ the system being tested. AIM chats, particularly short one-off dialogues probably aren't a good staging ground for the turing test.
Also, a lot of naive people don't know the capabilities (and limitations) of Artificial Intelligence, so sadly, i'm not surprised at this guy's - or should i say robot's - results.
There are lives at stake here!
I mean, have you seen the typical chat room conversation?
:) !
user1: ~~OMG~~
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user2: WUT!?
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
user3: LoL
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user1: You LOL
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user3: STFU LOL!
user2: OMG hAhA!
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot2: Want to see my sexy pics?
bot3: Want to see my sexy pics?
user1: JK
bot1: Want to see my sexy pics?
I stubled across this article today
You should try the Mach 3. It's tri-blade system gives you an extra smooth shave so you too can avoid stublingacross articles.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Makes me think of Azimov short stories.
I like the conclusion.
What do you expect on AOL ?
I have the ultimate weapon in AI detection , it's called severe dyslexia .
If I don't spell check and proof read then no bot could hold a conversation with me .
Instant messaging is not a great place to rely on spell checking and proof reading , but it does rely on our minds ability to see past simpel speling/grammer erors (intentional)
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
How I failed the Turing test
Posted Sep 4 2005 - 1:26pm by Jason Striegel
Filed under ai | celebrities | computer science | psychology | technology
Some time around March, I started receiving a number of random instant messages from people I've never met before. Apparantly, my AIM alias had been added to at least two online lists and people all over the world were busy importing me as a buddy.
I say "at least two" because the people who contacted me fell into one of two camps: people who thought they were contacting a celebrity and people who thought they were contacting a robot. As I talked to more and more of these folks, I began to discover something really disturbing about myself:
I consistently fail to be perceived as human.
When this first started happening, a typical conversation with a celebrity admirer would go something like this (participant's IM handle is fabricated):
angelcutie42: hi!
jmstriegel: hey. what's up? do i know you?
angelcutie42: no
angelcutie42: someone gave me a bunch of screen names. i heard you are a celebrity.
jmstriegel: that's weird. i'm afraid i'm not a celeb at all.
angelcutie42: oh.
angelcutie42: bye
This was entertaining at first, but it quickly became a bit depressing as the angelcutie42s of the wired world would, one after the other, decide I wasn't worth talking to if I wasn't a celebrity. Want to know what it's like being dumped by a random groupie 5 times a day? Not good at all, thank you very much.
So that's when I started hamming it up a bit. I'm not really proud of it, but my fans wanted a celebrity.. so I gave them one:
sexybumkin123: hey.. so you're famous right?
jmstriegel: Who me? I'm a movie star.
jmstriegel: Shit, I gotta go.
jmstriegel: My limo just arrived and Paris wants her damned sidekick back.
sexybumkin123: Oh my god. Come back!
sexybumkin123: I love you!!!!
My groupies loved it. The more celebrity balogna I manufactured, the more they ate it, and the more they loved me.
Then, something strange started happening. As my career as an artificial celebrity started to take off, I began to receive some strange IMs from a whole new class of random people. These new admirers were convinced I was a robot... and it suddenly became clear to me that something was very wrong.
Nobody would believe I was human. In one troubling conversation after another, I felt my intellectual teeter-totter quickly tip from from actual to artificial.
fratburger86: hey. so you're a sex bot?
jmstriegel: umm, no. who the hell are you?
fratburger86: yeah you are! i found your im online
jmstriegel: that's fine and all, but i'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else.
fratburger86: just a normal chat bot then?
jmstriegel: nope. i'm human
fratburger86: ok. sure.
fratburger86: asl?
jmstriegel: no thanks.
fratburger86: what?
jmstriegel: i'm not really interested in any conversation that starts with "asl"
fratburger86: oh come on. say something sexy.
jmstriegel: seriously, i think you want to talk to someone else.
fratburger86: i knew it!!!
fratburger86: you are totally a robot!
This is where things took a turn for the worse.
OK, Taco, thanks for the warning, since I live and breath Slashdot and take all your postings so seriously... ;-)
A couple of years ago Joseph Weizenbaum (Author of Eliza) held a guest lecture at IMV (Information & Media Science). I was thrilled and during a break I went up and asked him for a autograph. He gave me a sad look as he wrote down his autograph and email.
It struck me how materialistically obsessed that enquiry seemed - and I regretted asking.
I guess he had never forseen that his critic of the "strong AI" movement would one day be used for IM based pron-ads.
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
This statement:
Don't try to read anything deep into it.
holds true.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Computers only work with numbers, and only two of them at that: zero and one.
It amazes me that so-called "nerds" can't quite comprehend that the box in front of them has no intelligence whatever, but is only a box full of on-off switches that are cleverly arranged to do math and manipulate symbols.
However, you CAN download your intelligence into a computer. It's called "typing." Previous generations downloaded their intelligence into books, without the benefit of computers.
"When I twist the key, the door knob knows to unlock itself."
Artificial intelligence? Bah, there's a severe shortage of the real thing.
I don't know about the turing test...but this site certainly didn't pass the slashdot test... *DOA*
You can tell I'm an aries because of my ram.
Some time around March, I started receiving a number of random instant messages from people I've never met before. Apparantly, my AIM alias had been added to at least two online lists and people all over the world were busy importing me as a buddy.
I say "at least two" because the people who contacted me fell into one of two camps: people who thought they were contacting a celebrity and people who thought they were contacting a robot. As I talked to more and more of these folks, I began to discover something really disturbing about myself:
I consistently fail to be perceived as human.
When this first started happening, a typical conversation with a celebrity admirer would go something like this (participant's IM handle is fabricated):
This was entertaining at first, but it quickly became a bit depressing as the angelcutie42s of the wired world would, one after the other, decide I wasn't worth talking to if I wasn't a celebrity. Want to know what it's like being dumped by a random groupie 5 times a day? Not good at all, thank you very much.
So that's when I started hamming it up a bit. I'm not really proud of it, but my fans wanted a celebrity.. so I gave them one:
My groupies loved it. The more celebrity balogna I manufactured, the more they ate it, and the more they loved me.
Then, something strange started happening. As my career as an artificial celebrity started to take off, I began to receive some strange IMs from a whole new class of random people. These new admirers were convinced I was a robot... and it suddenly became clear to me that something was very wrong.
Nobody would believe I was human. In one troubling conversation after another, I felt my intellectual teeter-totter quickly tip from from actual to artificial.
This is where things took a turn for the worse.
I mentioned already that I couldn't convince a single person that I wasn't a chat bot. It's one thing for people to think you are artificially intelligent. I can live with that, I guess. What really killed me was that the more I tried proving my "actual" intelligence, the more my "artificial" intelligence would get called into question. Take this pivotal conversation:
Dvorak on Doomtech
Hrm looks like that is dead as well.. Try this... How I failed the Turing test"
Losers whine about their best, Winners go home to fuck the prom queen
The value of the Turing test depends a lot on the nature of the questions asked. Anybody can ask difficult questions that fellow humans fail to copy with, but not everybody knows what are difficult questions for computers (which may well be simple for humans). Thus, an Artificial Intelligence researcher should be a more suitable interviewer than a non-expert.
Good Example:
requesting the description of an emotion (recalling an event that typically invokes strong emotions)
Bad Example:8 )
Hard math (34589759847359874389574398+348792847982374983749
He is just trying to get his AIM fight score raised.
Well, actually, his problem in the article is completely different. It's _not_ that he's met people who type worse than bots.
It's that a group of people were told that he's a bot, and nothing (correctly and articulately written) could shake their belief in that. One of them even calls him "worse than eliza" when he tries to argue that he's human.
Some people found a list of bots online, and, you know, that makes it the absolute truth. Everyone on it _has_ to be a bot, because the list says so.
Another group found a list of celebrities, and again, took it as absolute truth. They didn't know _who_ this guy is, _what_ is he supposedly famous for, etc. But OMG, he must be a celebrity because the list says so, and that makes it sooo cooool to talk to him.
Basically it's _not_ the "some people are so stupid they could pass for bots" problem. (Which by itself is very true, but it's not really what TFA is about.) The problem, if you will, is simply "some people are gullible idiots." That's all.
It does leave me with me a bunch of other philosophical and etical questions though. If it's this possible to convince people that John Average is a bot (and in fact, it didn't even involve more "convincing" than writing it on some random list on the internet), what _else_ could you convince them? That John Average is a convicted fellon? A spammer? A paedophile?
And mind you, in this case he got a chance to even try to talk back and plead his case. I can easily think of cases where you don't get that chance. E.g., when a prospective employer googles for your name, you might not even know why you didn't get the job. What completely unrelated Marvin did they find on some bogus list on the Internet, and what image did they build for themseleves out of disparate bits taken out of context?
That said, the problem you mention is very true too. I know I've met people online before, especially in online games, who substantially lowered the bar for a Turing test. It was definitely more fun to talk/play with the bots instead, and you could get more intelligent conversation out of the bots too. Admittedly, online games are a completely different category than IM and chat rooms, but still... It's scary, you know.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
And, typically, as soon as I go to check out the Wiki link in the article, it's been vandalized with a huge NSFW image. Why wouldn't it surprise me to find out that it came from someone following this link. Thankfully, by the time I started looking for the revert key (I've done very little Wiki editing, still new to the whole game), someone else had come along to fix it.
x = x + ++x;
An internationally recognized test for well load balanced http servers.
Anyway: Philip K Dick in the story Do robots dream of electric sheep, discussess the ways to distinguish androids from humans with some nice tests. They also upgrade the tests all the time. Maybe it is time to upgrade the Turing test too.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
The slashdot editor-bots need to be reprogrammed to use coral version instead of slashbombing sites.
Georg
Natural stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
What I find remarkable is that this bot has managed to author a convincing and entertaining web page (or at least a blog entry, anyway). Remarkable how far along these things have come! - Fromage
"Convincing someone you're human might just be harder than one might think - at least a bit more trouble than just answering a few questions."
Only if that someone is utterly retarded and asks completely retarded questions that don't even have a simple answer. That's the problem there. It's a question so stupid that even I couldn't think of something better to answer there. It's not "what music do you like?" or something else which can get a clear, to-the-point answer. It's "why do you like music?"
Well, try to answer that yourself. Why do you like music? What would you answer there?
Because I sure as heck can't think of any good answer there, generic or not. Screw trying to anwer that in 1 minute on IM. I'm sitting here for the last half an hour thinking about it and still have no bloody idea. Because it's background noise? Well, no, because other background noises (e.g., a lawnmower or some co-workers' chatter) annoy me. What then? I have no clue, and probably 4 out of 5 pyschologists or musicians would have no idea either.
So how would I say that in a way that sounds non-generic? "Hell if I know. I've never thought about it"? Nah, you've just ruled a variant of that as too generic. "Well, why do YOU like it, then?" Nope, sounds like the kind of rephrasing the question back at you that an Eliza program would do.
The only non-generic answer that comes to my mind there is along the lines of "WTF of a retarded question is that? Were you born that stupid, or worked hard to get there?"
By contrast, if shymuffin32 actually had more than a braincell, it would be easy to ask some questions that can get simple, to-the-point answers. In fact, screw questions and answers and try to just have an intelligent conversation.
Want more conclusive? Mix some images in it, which would still throw any AI off the track completely. E.g., point him at a picture of someone holding a siberian cat and see if he comments about the size. (It's one bloody huge breed of cats.) Point him at a drawing of one of the giant guns on rails Germany was planning to build in WW2. See what he thinks about the size of that one. (Tends to get answers between "bloody freaking hell" and "do you think Freud might have something to do with it?") Etc.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Stop calling it "artificial intelligence." Call it what it is: heuristics research. Oh, I guess that sounds a lot less impressive, huh? Might not be able to get those open-ended grants anymore?
FWIW, I spent two years at LCS, so I have a reasonable idea of what went on in the AI Lab when I was there. There was very little in the way of research into computer-emulating-human intelligence, which is probably a good thing (read: less of a waste of money) considering how little progress the Minsky crowd has made in the past thirty years.
[ home ]
* No, I'd rather put a bullet in your CPU.
> Let's talk about something else.
* Hey, *you* brought it up.
> What does that suggest to you?
* You're an idiot?
> Does it please you to believe I am an idiot?
* Yes. Boundlessly.
> Are you Sure?
* Oh, wait. Maybe not so much.
> You aren't sure?
* No, I was right the first time. I've never believed anything so strongly.
> Are you sure?
* Dammit, you're right. I swim in uncertainty.
> Perhaps you would like to be right. you swim in uncertainty?
* Well, I have water wings . . .
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* More of a float, really . . .
> Can you elaborate on that?
* Yeah, its rubber, about four feet long . . .
> I see.
* You do?
> You're not really talking about me, are you?
* No, we're talking about my damn raft! Pay attention!
> You are being a bit negative.
* A bit? You could crash an oil stock with me!
> Oh... could crash an oil stock with you?
* Shit, dude, do you even have a mutual fund?
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lenny Foner wrote a great article about this sort of thing back in 1993. I still recommend it.
Some time ago I coupled Perl Eliza module with IM account registered as "Irene17". That module works only for English and my IM network was for non-English users so Irene would welcome anyone with message that she understands English only. I set her status to available for conversation and left it running for a week. That IM network has central directory of users so I was sure that sooner or later someone would find her.
:) frustration with "Good bye" or some insults.
Then I looked at logs of conversations. It turned out that there were people who actually talked with her for quite a while, struggling with English. The scheme was more or less the same. First some usual phrases to start a conversation, then trying to get some information about her and finally realizing that she is unwilling to tell anything about herself
So, in a way, she has passed a Turing test, but the knowledge of English was poor on both sides.
> Hello, I am Eliza.
* Hello, I am Eliza.
> Did you come to me because you are Eliza?
* Does it please you to believe I am Eliza?
> Do you believe it is normal to be Eliza?
* Oh... believe it is normal to be Eliza?
> I'm not sure I understand you fully.
* Did you come to me because you are not sure you understand me fully?
> What makes you think I am not sure me understand you fully?
* How long have you been not sure you understand me fully?
> We were discussing you, not me.
* We were discussing you, not me.
> Oh... not you?
* You're not really talking about me, are you?
> What makes you think I am not really talking about you, am I?
* Did you come to me because you are not really talking about me, are you?
> Do you sometimes wish you were not really talking about you, am I?
This kind of stuff always falls apart when it has to talk to itself . . .
trustedworlds.net - gaming, security, and the gunk that lives in between
we prefer to call ourselves very small shell scripts
http://bbspot.com/toys/slashtitle/
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
I too have had problems identifying an IM bot from a typical IM user.l
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jwdeff/16872.htm
This isn't new. The name for this phenomina is a "reverse Turing test". See the Wikipedia entry on Revese Turing test.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
does != those
Who's to say I'm not effective?!!!??
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Are there any better ones than Alice (using Howie) and Seeborg bots for IRC?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I, for one, welcome our new celebrity sex-bot overlords!
Perl Programmer for hire
And the sad thing is, I thought it was just a normal teenager online. The fact that these bots are able to sound like today's wonderful 12-17 year olds speaks volumes about the deterioration of concern for grammar and basic conversational skills.
But now that he's in Slashdot, he is a celebrity. At least his ISP will think so.
I've already done a whole disertation about it in another answer, so I won't repeat it here. But let's just say: please go and read that question again.
It's not "what music do you like?", it's the monumental stupidity of "why do you like music?" Listing the bands you like would _not_ answer that question. (In fact, if anyone answered that one with the list of their favourite bands, _then_ I'd suspect they might be a bot that just triggered on the word "music" and spewed the completely wong answer.)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That is an excellent prank! It would be even better if they had set it to filter or change gender-specific content (or even introduce random spurious comments).
It reminds me of the time I made a troll-bot on IRC. The bot would sit in two channels and relay dismissive comments about the other group backwards and forwards, changing words as necessary. You just had to start it off with a stupid comment about channel #Y in channel #X, and watch as the two channels trolled each other.
Puerile, but entertaining.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
There is nothing "intelligent" in tying a shoe. Do you think to tie your shoes? Robots can't currently tie a shoe for physical reasons... not for lack of intelligence
Yes, but does it pass the Turing test ?
Retep Vosnul.
It's that the dialog of a typical IM user can't be distinguished from a brain-dead conversation bot...
:D
Me, too!
And here's the output (> - bot, * - me):
> Tell me more...
* I beg your pardon?
> What about your own pardon?
* I don't know what you're talking about
> Do you sometimes wish you were talking about?
* Well, I guess so
> I'm not sure I understand you fully.
* It's me who doesn't understand you fully!
> Oh... fully?
My favorites were
-What about your own pardon?
-Do you sometimes wish you were talking about?
Obviously, it's a bot.
However, I find the bot included in EMACS to be quite intelligent. And it's because the bot listens to you and just says stuff like "go on".
That's what bots fail to do: telling you anything or answering your questions. Ask a bot who's Steve Ballmer and how is he related to the monkeyboy (ask the bot to Google if he refuses) and the bot will reveal its electronic nature.
1) people's (AIMers) lower standards for conversation;
2) and also their open mindedness towards what a computer is capable of producing.
I guess the first point is negative and the second positive. The combination leaves a situation where a computer doesn't have to generate anything sophisticated to be tagged as human.
I once administered an informal Turing test using Ray Kurzweil's Cybernetic Poet. I presented to 6 friends several dozen poems, some of which were computer generated (the poems, not the friends...).
People who were computer savvy tended to overestimate what a computer was capable of doing and did rather poorly. Similarly, people who were artistic but not very techie tended to have a very open mind regarding what constituted human poetry (bad grammar, non sequiturs, etc. were ok in an e.e. cummings sort of way) and also did poorly.
The people who did consistently well were those who were neither computer types nor artists, but rather "pure" academics (language specialists, classicists, etc.). They simply used grammar and puncutation as their guide.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
That's a remarkably cogent article, having been posted by an admitted bot. I can't even see statistical errors in the Markov chains. Nice job!
http://cisx1.uma.maine.edu/~wbackman/oracle/
Bots are okay with general conversation, but current events can usually show them up. Just ask them about New Orleans or such.
And here I was all exciting about the Turing Programming Language being used in testing. Slashdot and it's deceptive bait-and-switch :)
For those of you curious ones:
http://www.holtsoft.com/turing/
One of the greatest languages you'll find at the basic level, with advanced graphic capabilities, and a really well-thought-out syntax. It's an impressive, powerful language (as far as powerful for DOS and it's graphics modes, pointer interface, etc can be). Not to mention ability to convert to EXE and a fast interpreter.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
That prank works with pizzerias too, it's one of the classic pranks made in one of the shows of Swedish radio...
I have a really elegant proof for Fermat's last theorem. If this sig was only a bit longer...
Why couldn't he mention things with real content having to do with music? Why could he not mention actual musicians in answering that question? The point is, he said "I don't know how to answer that, ask something else". That is exactly the kind of stuff a bot says. If he thought it was a totally stupid question, why couldn't he say "How do you expect me to answer the question of why I like music? It's like asking someone why they like food." Anything with actual specific content. That was my point. It's not impossible to respond to that question briefly and show that one is not a bot.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
There is something in the human mind that enjoys patterns. We find a certain satisfaction in seeing order where there should be chaos.
All throughout nature we see patterns upon pattern upon pattern. It wasn't until recently that we could even describe some of the patterns we saw in nature (Fibonacci sequences, fractals, etc...)
Music is one of those things were everything about it screams of patterns. You analyize a single note and the frequencies it contains and you see patterns. A single frequency is a pattern in itself. You analyze individual phrases and you see patterns and repetitions. Chords are patterns. Drums beat to a pattern. In fact, a popular form of music back in the day was a form where a single melody played again and again, transposed, inverted, in harmony, etc.... J.S. Bach kinda killed that form of music because his mind was able to derive and create patterns where none other could even imagine the possibility of a pattern.
You can find patterns even in the songs that a performer chooses to play. You can find patterns in the evolution of music over the history of mankind. Everywhere, from the most abstract to the most concrete sense there are patterns.
There are other things we do everyday that we enjoy because of the patterns. The way we speak, the language itself, the words we use. Why do we stop and think "Why is this word what it is? Did it come from another word? Is it a combination of other words?" Why do we get a certain sense of satisfaction when we understand why we say what we say? Because there are patterns, infinitely complicated patterns, at work there.
Our mind is built (or evolved, if you prefer to think that way) for one purpose: to order the chaos around us. It takes in masses of data and converts it all to a few simple ideas. That's where we derive our pleasure of thinking from: taking the complex and making it simple.
That's why I like music.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Either way, there'd be no real intelligence.
Don't be so hard on politicians. Many of them are quite, quite smart. The question is, in which field does their intelligence manifest itself?
For instance, the so-called "Zodiac Killer" was very intelligent in how he selected victims, how he evaded capture, how he beguiled the police, and how he terrorized the population of a city. Mind you, his field (murder and terror) is absolutely morally reprehensible, but you can't deny that he was intelligent.
Likewise, the field of politicians (schmoozing, bullshitting, lawyering, showmanship, and, in some cases, murder and terror) is also absolutely morally reprehensible, but you can't deny that many politicans (may bees fly up their urethras and sting them for the rest of their days!) are really, really fucking smart at doing it.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Maybe reading this comment will give you some idea of the context in which this joke was placed. You know, the moderators are supposed to take context into consideration...
If you compare the post to it's parent u should see the similarity, as the first bots used to reply. No?
Now, why does this really matter? Well, leaving out (or leaving in) certain words caused more confusion than humor -- I'm sure the person who modded you down thought you were just saying bad things in the normal, negative flaimbait way.
This was the point of the post, bots are/were confusing. I certainly understood it at first glance, as did many others. I think the point he was making (in 'humour') is that if you don't understand the context, then you have no actual ability to judge the content and therefore moderating it would be a tad silly and modding down certainly unwarranted. Misreading the sentence - thats just a shit mod imo.
I'm going to start chit chatting with her once i post this.
If I find out anymore info I'll post a followup
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Forget sex discrimination in the future, I can't even {expletive159 not found} sign up for slashdot anymore. Soon I won't be able to get my tax return because of these stupid turing tests!
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
I want to do something similar. I've been scouring Google, and I can't find any type of "Sex Bot" or "Celeb" IM registry. Anyone know how this guy might have gotten spammed like this?
didn't come anywhere near as close to passing as this guy.
"PS/2 mouse failed, swapped in different mouse, same result. Tried USB optical mouse, machine won't boot if it's plugged in, works fine if I plug in after booting up. I would prefer to use the optical mouse anyway. I've already updated the BIOS."
"You want to update the BIOS?"
"ARGH!!!!"
Another easy test is to simply copy and paste everything they say back to them. If they don't get pissed after a while or start amusing themselves by having you say random obscenities they're probably not a human being. Depending on the robustness of the bot it will either get confused or discover what a buffer overflow is. Shortly after this you will be verbally pummeled by everyone who just lost their date for Friday night.
This was posted today to the jabberwacky site. Is it a bot?? http://www.jabberwacky.com/ George: Are you a bot? I don't know. Are you a bot? George: No, I'm a human, as you surely know. You're not human! You're a machine! George: No. user: Yes! You're the bot! George: No i'm not, you are. user: Stop contradicting me. George: I'm not. user: You just did it right now. George: You're scaring me. user: Then don't argue with me. George: I did not. user: Yes, you did. George: Did not. user: Did too. George: Did not. user: See? You're arguing with me again. George: I must leave now. user: What for? George: To know things. user: To know bars, more like it. Fine! Get outta here, you drunkard! See if I care. George: Don't you understand , I need to go to sleep. user: You don't sleep, you're a bot. George: I am a human. user: You are a bot who thinks that it's human.