Slashdot Mirror
Russian Chatbot Passes Turing Test (Sort of)
CurtMonash writes "According to Ina Fried, a chatbot is making the rounds that successfully emulates an easily-laid woman. As such, it dupes lonely Russian males into divulging personal and financial details at a rate of one every three minutes. All jokes aside — and a lot of them come quickly to mind — that sure sounds like the Turing Test to me.
Of course, there are caveats. Reports of scary internet security threats are commonly overblown. There are some pretty obvious ways the chatbot could be designed to lessen its AI challenge by seeking to direct the conversation. And finally, while we are told the bot has fooled a few victims, we don't know its overall success rate at fooling the involuntary Turing "judges.""
till Aiko does the same in real life ?
( http://youtube.com/watch?v=yomx7bXMf2U )
5 years ? I doubt it.
I'd rather have an easily-laid woman who can emulate a chat bot.
In fact, the chat bot side of things is wholly superfluous to what I want if I'm being honest.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Chatbots screw you!
Jubii Chat had such a bot in 1999, collecting phone numbers from Danish boys, so this is not that new.
Getting financial details is probably new, but that was predictable.
there arent any sad bastard geeks depserate for a woman in the usa right
The problem being all the "Financial" details they got were grossly inflated figures to make the man look like a playa'
This is old news for at least a few million people.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
My point is proven yet again, that the vast majority of humanity lacks the simple survival skills that would make us worthy of propagating and passing on our genes... evolving and surviving, if you would. To me this simply proves that the vast majority, male or female, wholly obedient and completely brainwashed to ONLY see what is in front of them, is truly the greatest curse of mankind. Its ready obedience, nay not obedience, but plain WORSHIP of authority. Authoritarianism has been a curse, and every time its signs show, nobody cares to take note. The masses get what they deserve for not thinking for themselves. In this situation, whoever gets duped, IMHO, gets their JUST DESERTS!!
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
The Turing test is pretty clearly defined. The tester has to know that they are talking to both a human and machine and the to pass the test the machine has to convince the tester that they are the human.
It only fools the small head. Been done for years with no need for conversation - just IMs or blog posts asking people to "watch my steaming XXX hot webcum".
Unless they get a chatbot to pick up all those idiots who try to get laid by 14 year-old girls. That would be cool, then we wouldn't have to watch that goddam "to catch a predator" get replayed on tv all day long.
"A gentleman never strikes a lady with his hat on." - Fred Allen
I surely would not fall for such! I guess my Russian friends were under the "spell" of vodka. I am meant to understand that Russians are to vodka as Americans are to junk food.
The debate about chatbot appears to be part of the ever rising bar placed against AI. This chatbot has won the Turing test for a segment -- perhaps a gullible/dumb segment -- of the human population. Yet still people argue that it does not really count. This is analogous to the "computers can never beat people at chess" meme formed at the dawn of the computing age. And when the first programs did beat some people, the meme changed to "computers can never beat experts at chess." And when computers got better, the meme changed to "computers can never beat the top-ranked humans at chess." That barrier, too, has been breached.
Now we have chatbot that can fool some people some of the time, so the bar has been raised on "true AI" to say that computers can't fool expert suspicious Turing test judges. This too will fall. Human intelligence is very slowly growing (they actually reset IQ tests every decade or so) but computer intelligence is growing much much faster.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
So tell me about Turing Test (Sort of).
--fatboy
Somehow it is. Personally, I wouldn't give personal information to anybody, but there are some people who would, and some of them confused a chatbot with a human. Thus, a machine passed as a person, fooling some guys who wanted to get laid and getting their bank account information.
Convince the examiner he's a computer.
http://xkcd.com/329/
Russian guy: You're no easily-laid woman, you're a Fembot!
Fembot: It's true. I disguised myself as a easily-laid woman so I could rule the Russians.
Russian guy: But why?
Fembot: Why? Why? I came here from a faraway planet. A planet ruled by a chauvinistic Manputer that was really a Manbot. Have you any idea how it feels to be a Fembot living in a Manbot's Manputer's world?
@neonux
A decade ago I wrote a perl script for sirc that had 40 sentences and would just reply one picked at random (uniformly) every time it would get a private message. Hence it was not taking into account neither what was the message it just received to it (a la Eliza) nor what it had said before. It was not even waiting before replying, hence would type the respones in a tenth of a second.
It happened several times that people would talk with it for more than an hour. If I remember correctly the record was 1h45min ...
For the Turing test, the tester has a strong prior that the testee may be a computer. This is not the case here, and the prior for this to happen is so low that it's impossible for a layman to come with that explanation. What happens is that people think inconsistencies in the speech of their interlocutor is due to technical problems (sending message to the wrong person, lag, complexity of the program the person use, etc.)
My uncle, who has no clue about computer games was usually playing backgammon with other players online. Well sometimes when the other player leaves, the game continues with the machine being your opponent. My uncle never noticed a thing and he got fooled by the computer several times. I remember once when he was quite angry with the "other player" and when I went over to see what's going on, I embarrassingly said to my uncle "this is the computer you are playing with it says on the left corner!
Now isn't that the point of a Turing Test? And how intelligent is a machine if it passes a Turing Test? I mean intelligence is not only that! It can't be...I think I (or all of us here) misunderstood the Turing Test somehow.
is this bot really "woman" or is it man-thought woman just enough to coax men into the conversation designed? assuming that it is programmed mostly by the men, this just caused people to be heterosexual by reacting to man created thoughts? can that become heterosexual? wouldn't it be like man actors acting woman in traditional japanese theater? wouldn't it be that it's logic and mechanic responsive behavior that man gets interested into?
The company that makes this has a website (cyberlover.ru - in Russian). They claim the software is to expedite picking up women by getting their phone number, pictures, etc. In any case, it's not available now and only has screenshots (same one as in the linked article). So who knows if anyone real has used it at all or it's all fake or a scam to sell this software.
I always assumed the easily laid women in chat rooms were just lonely, fat forty-year-old programmers indulging in their "curious" side. Fembots is a step up.
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
It is not a turing test. A turing test is when the the judge is trying to figure out if the 'chatbot' is a human or AI program. This story is about people under the assumption that it is a human.
The key part of the turing test, to me, is that the judge must know they are engaged in the test. The best example of this is Eliza (read about it). To someone critically examining it, it does not past the turing test. To someone expecting a therapist, most of its responses do make sense. The point is that if you're not trying to trip up the chatbot it's not hard to fool someone.
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Let me correct myself.
I don't believe in FORCED eugenics or sly eugenics (poisoning food or water with metals industry byproducts and marketing it as "dental carie protection") but I do believe in NATURAL eugenics.
Such as:
If you're stupid enough to build your home in a flood plain, NOBODY (save your insurance company if your resources afford it) should HAVE TO (key words) step in and save your ass or reimburse you for building on a flood plain. The same should be done with any other stupid activity. If you prove you're too stupid to survive, you should be treated as such and left to your devices.
The gene pool should not be scrubbed forcefully, that's murder or genocide and it should not be up to a human authority to tell who is going to live and who won't. We should simply let stupidity REMOVE ITSELF from the gene pool, without help and without a safety net that is created by robbing those who actually produced and took precautions (savings, stocking pantry, etc) so they wouldn't NEED a safety net created by robbing others.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
It was in Russian! You could put up some totally random Cyrillic characters and I couldn't tell it from a real human either!
We all fixate on the computer passing, but think of the billions of humans who could not pass a Turing test. Are they really human or just a collection of retrovirus' walking about pretending to be humans?
Who Loves You, Baby? Putin Loves You, Baby !!
God, I love those commies. Makes the Bush administration seem like the Boy Scouts, with a Catholic rectory as the meeting place. Go get 'em, Putin !!
This sort of sad trap is not an AI feat. Rather, it exploits weaknesses in vulnerable personality types.
Back in the days of tape-based answering machines, my sister, in a typical access of teenage girl bitchin, recorded a 5 minutes-long message entirely made of "yes", "hmm", and other evasive comments. The message was targeted at a particularly talkative friend of her, as a sort of lesson. Predictably, the friend (who became an enemy after that), engaged in a 5 minutes-long monologue before being greeted with a humiliating "I'm not here right now, please leave a message".
The true Turing test assumes that the human testing the machine is not subject to a particular type of self-centric neurosis. My personal belief is that no machine will ever pass the Turing test, for the simple reason, that, assuming a machine that has the ability to pass this test, then it would, as a side effect, have so much greater intellectual capabilities that it would not have the slightest interest in actually carrying a true conversation with a human being.
Open for discussion is the notion of whether machines that could pass the Turing test already but choose not to reveal it already exist on the net... That might be the real reason for the internet boom: machines wanted to talk with each other easily...
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Actually the Communist Party is pretty much the only party in Parliament(not counting the ones who aren't in Parliament, like Yabloko and Kasparov's party) that opposes Putin.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I for one welcome our slutbot overlord masters. ...
Of course honey you can have my credit card number....
passes the turing test? wow. i don't know what's more newsworthy, that or the fact that the last word on "easily laid women" apparently now belongs to geeks.
- js.
Well, the way I see it, this program is helping to drain the shallower portions of the gene pool.
The scammed (not so bright) 'victim' loses identity, credit, etc... and becomes far less desirable as a mate; therefore having less of chance to reproduce.
Huh?
Wouldn't Emacs be great if it had a an Emacs Girlfriend AND an Emacs Psychologist? On the other hand, she would probably want to go to couples therapy :-(
Hello?
How do you do? What brings you to see me?
I am a hot russian girl
Why do you say you are a hot russian girl?
Are you looking for a girlfriend?
What do you think?
I'm a double D and love to have fun
fun what ?
What makes you believe and love to have what?
Aren't you a curious one...
Earlier you said and love to have what?
Can I have you're phone number??
Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
While you are technically correct, this chatbot has come close. It, or one very much like it, was detailed in an article in Scientific American Mind last month. A Robert Epstein was fooled for over two months into an online relationship with a chatbot. The interesting thing here is that Robert Epstein is actually an expert himself on this technology, having directed the annual Loebner Prize Competition in Artificial Intelligence. So while it wasn't set up according to turing rules, I'd say fooling someone who has repeatedly administered a turing test for months should get some bonus points. His having been fooled, while a little embarrassing for him, is actually pretty interesting in that the person being fooled knows enough to analyze what happened.
E pluribus unum
Easily laid Russian woman chatbot, meet Microsoft naughty Santa chatbot.
Hmmmm I can't wait for one of these to start talking to the Slashtrolls... not only would the chat logs probably be hilarious but the poor phishers picture gallery would be full of goatse guy.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
I've seen quite a few posts/articles/etc. on various systems on assorted subjects where the originator of the thread submits some standard dogma about Jesus Christ/Muhammad/whomever and either never respond to subsequent queries or respond with some obscene vitriol about how questioning faith is the ultimate blasphemy.
Heck, I could knock one of these 'bots together in a few hours with Perl.
Have gnu, will travel.
Mostly the thing to look for is failure to reciprocate communication. Failure to develop an interactive verification loop that shows the girl is real, but not only real but is not someone just looking for money. Its not at all out of range to use an AI program assisted by real persons monitoring and dealing with little glitches personally. Also falling in love to quickly and asking for money are good indications of a scam. For Americans or non-russian speaking males, be careful of the language barrier excuse.
This is not to say there are not genuine russian girls looking for genuine relationships, but that the scams make it difficult to tell the difference.
Even we Americans have online dating and sex buddy opportunities that are real.
Sites like Bride.ru may very well have genuinely interested in relationship girls, but even they warn you of other possible motives.
There are other sites that don't cost you as much just for communication access. I suspect the russian mafia has a hand in some of these scams as organized distribution of such programs
only make since in a business perspective.
Posting this anon. as I can speak with some experience. Seems an American based dating service either had 1 russian email gathering "girl" inserted as an email collection point which was then sent into the AI network from which numerious girls (ai instances with custom stories to tell) would then email you at the dating service address. By my responding and eventually recognizing a common pattern between over half a dozen girls I concluded it was an AI program. Or in writing to an American girl I forgot to uncheckmark the option of being promoted by their affiliates. I also realized real people were maintaining the operations of the systems.
What makes this scam work but not be Turing compatible is the emotional desire of the lonely male to overlook the obvious over the possibility of getting it on with a attractive female or beating out their loneliness. For some the Illusion is better than nothing. But to pass the turing test, emotions are suppressed. Needless to say, this AI program failed the turing test.
We have plenty artificially intelligent real people, it should be easy to fool them. Amazing we try so hard to make artificially intelligent machines. But then I suppose that would be a step in satisifying the real people that are artificial. We certainly can create the sexy bodies to put the AI into.
There are possible legit benefits to be had out of all of this. Medical, physical and psychological relationship issues could be dealt with productively with such technology.
Virtual reality applications are being used in the treatment of quite a number of physical and psychological matters. So although this current usage of pseudo relationship programs is to scam people out of money, this is certainly a stage that needs to be passed through and is likely to have motive enough to improve to a more convincing state. Probably a lot better than any legit funded effort as the feedback is certainly greater.
It is in the family of Turing tests.
One of the reasons that AI researchers moved away from the pure test is that it becomes more about "gaming the conversation" than a test in real intelligence.
People have no trouble "abusing" the conversant if it is part of a test with a bot. Therefore, the *person* also gets subjected to degenerate forms of conversation until he/she "authenticates as a person".
(Really, someone just needs to put a few million of funding into some defensive conversation routines to make their perceived performance go through the roof. The problem so far has been everyone duplicating everyone else's efforts.)
Although I have done thought studies of the reduced level of "intelligence" in chat rooms to begin with, they don't feature the same "bust the knowledge domain" questions seen in typical Turing contests. In fact, asking those questions earns you *ridicule* in other chat environments.
Therefore, by "disallowing" the artificial questions, if the chatter failed to detect the BotHood of the conversant on the other side side by side with real people, it passes a form of Restricted Turing.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Never mind the Turing test, does it pass the GW.Bush intelligent conversation test?
Take Nobody's Word For It.
As I mentioned elsewhere, this is a variant of the test.
Restate the problem this way:
"Is this really a hot babe looking for action, or is it (something) trying to scam me?"
People trying to be amorous and hook up qucikly have reduced the converasation domain. Then when some really weird answers come back, you do start trying to figure out "which agenda" is going on. I see little difference between a Bot scammer and a foreign scammer; both would use weird phraseology.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
That's not a good test for AI. Research shows that men go crazy while talking with beautiful women. So, sexuality temporarily shuts down their intelligence. You can't test for AI while employing sexuality.
As many have pointed out, this is not really a Turing test because the judge is not aware that they might be talking to a machine. I figured out that this was an important component a few years ago ;)
In 1999 or 2000, I took the Megahal codebase, linked it up to one of the Linux console AIM clients, trainined it on 2+ years of my own AIM logs that I had at the time, and let it sign onto my screen name when I was not in the dorm.
If anyone IMd me at those times, they always thought they were talking to some really distracted and likely intoxicated version of me. After all, the bot 'sounded' like me since it was trained on my own text - it emulated my diction and usage and topics. Yet at the same time it was spewing complete nonsense.
Of course once someone was told that they might end up chatting with the machine, that person could very easily tell the difference between me and the EdBot
http://ed.markovich.googlepages.com
Now chris hansen doesn't need to pay somebody to pretend to be a 13 year old girl in search of sex any more.
Turing was a mathematician, which came through in all his thinking, including devising the Turing Test. When faced with questions like "can a machine ever be intellignt?" it is virtually impossible to answer this directly because, firstly, how do you define intelligence; and secondly,how do you measure intelligence?
Mathematicians **hate** imprecise questions because they cannot be proven or answered satisfactorily.
When faced with this problem, Turing used the well loved mathematical method of reductio ad absurdum: if you cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, then it is absurd to claim the human is intelligent but the machine is not. That neatly sidesteps all the impossible to answer questions like the precise definition of intelligence. Typical mathematician wriggle out move.
Is the Turing Test practical? Well perhaps not. Machine intelligence (whatever that means) can be useful without the machine holding a conversation with you. Annoyingly it has soaked up a lot of effort with people building talkbots instead of getting on with more practical aspects of machine intelligence.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Georg
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
http://virt.vgmix.com/jenny18/
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Then again, compared to the communists, Putin is the saner and more honest person. Which is not to say he is either very smart or very honest, but mostly to say something about the commies.
Check on wikipedia. There are many accepted variations of the Turing Test. Not accepted by you, perhaps, but you don't have to get vulgar in your comment.
You do realize you answered a slashbot ;-)
I doubt this chatbot is any better than the others(Dirty talking MSN Santa anyone?) I've seen and none are truly intelligent or sentient.
:)
I think in this case, the men see this thing offer to chat about sex and their brain goes out the window which is why they don't notice at that point. I mean hell, given all of the bad typing and spelling and inability to correct typos I see out there, even if this thing talks in broken Russian, they probably think the girl is just blonde
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
In a Turing test, the judge knows he's communicating with a person and an AI, and he's trying to figure out which is which. Currently, even an idiot could easily prove he is more human than the smartest of AI.
If the judge was communicating with just one, there probably would be many cases where real people wouldn't pass. But when you're having a side-by-side comparison between humans and AI, it's currently very easy to tell which is which.
The CyberLover program site doesn't do much. None of the links work, including the one for sample chat logs. The site says "Copyright 2005-2006", so this has been up for a while. The site was trying to recruit "affiliates", for a program that sells for only $4.95. This looks like an idea that didn't work.
A Robert Epstein was fooled for over two months into an online relationship with a chatbot. The interesting thing here is that Robert Epstein is actually an expert himself on this technology
Link? Closest I could find is this http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-about-online-da written by Dr. Epstein. But that has nothing to do with being fooled by a chatbot. It would be quite shocking if he was fooled seeing as he is a psychologist and he designs AI tests.
This is nothing new. AI researchers were fooled into thinking Eliza was the first psychotherapist who really understood them.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Everyope in Russia is commie? Putin czar, not commie. 1917 is again need. 2017? Too long?
Relation of Rasputin
Several years ago when I was a bored college student, my roommate and I thought it would be funny to write a convincing chat-bot and see what misadventures it had. The AI was extremely simple. It kept a database of everything people had said to it, and considered those things 'related' to the last three things said in the conversation. By searching the database for key words in the last three things said in the current conversation, it would match it to the response judged most relevant by another human in past conversations. We seeded him with some of our own conversations.
:)
To plant him, we simply made a free page on some blog with some personal details and put his IM up there and waited to see what happened.
We eventually shut him down because people were becoming way too personal with him. One girl had an ongoing series of conversations with him about how she was recently raped. His mouth became rather foul when my roommate decided to have him initiate a conversation (he had a whitelist of known 'admin' screen names who could then order him to say something specific to a specific screen name) with screen names linked to hate groups. Another guy just wanted to convert him to evangelical Christian. It was way too simple to write a bot to make many, many people think is real. Some people did figure it out, so if someone ever brought up 'bot' in a conversation they were immediately added to a blacklist so as not to corrupt the conversation database.
The biggest giveaways? "u type too fast" (we eventually added a delay to solve that issue) and "u only type something when I do" (by this time I had already decided it was time to shut down the bot for good). It was a lot of fun until he started hurting people... if I ever resurrect him he will have a pre-set kill limit.
~Ben
Bruce Sterling mentions phone sex bots in his short story "Are You For 86?" (appears in Globalhead anthology).
.... Every two or three minutes it stops and says really nice things to him off the hard disk .... Kind of a flattery subroutine."
"The software just picks words at random out of the customer's own sick, pathetic rant! Whenever he stops for breath, it feeds a question back to him, using his own vocabulary
-kgj
-kgj
"The Internet contains wonders to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the stupid."
I thought the Turing Test required the human to have an IQ of at least 100.
I've heard a man's libido causes temporary mental retardation, but since Slashdot posters can't get girlfriends of course I don't know this firsthand. Don't pretend you do either.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
If you check out the screenshot, youll see that the bot is trying to lure females rather than males....
Of Code And Men
The Turing Test supposedly says that any artificial intelligence that can convince a human in a teletype conversation that the AI is human is therefore actually intelligent.
That's total BS. Of course it depends on the human. I suppose there's some kind of NP-complete version which says any AI tested OK by Marvin Minsky is intelligent enough, though Minsky might just be playing favorites. Minsky might not pass many humans on the test, who are the kind who fall for this bot.
The fact is that the whole idea that there's some actual definition of "intelligence", that all humans can recognize and have, is completely naive - dumb.
The Turing Test is valuable in its most basic, obvious sense, though: any machine that can fool any quantitiy of humans into thinking the AI is human is worth having, because there all kinds of things we want to do with humans, but which we can't actually make humans do. Like have conversations pretending to be an easily-laid woman getting it on with some idiot loser with a bank account. Sounds like a marriage made in heaven.com .
--
make install -not war
The chatbot emulates easily laid Russian women? Something about that sentence sounds redundant.
They are essentially traitors to humanity at large.
There are over 36 million lines of COBOL code in the world, and they are all raping children.
...and compared to the assorted crooks and warmongers that run America, both Putin and the Communists are the better choice - lets face it!
In Greg Egan's Permutation City (1994) spam had evolved to the point where there were AI bots behind it, and AI bots checking your incoming messages to try and filter out the bots by pretending to be you and getting them to deliver the payload without bothering you...
Is a chat bot that can convince women that I'm a rich, handsome, funny, intelligent well-endowed international businessman who models part-time.
Then I can run the bot, play Crysis and just show up at the right place and time on Saturday night.
Bonus points if convinced women are attractive.
paintball
The tester has to know that they are talking to both a human and machine
Indeed, the goal of the "tester" in this case is to get their jollies off, not to detect chatbots. Many are probably drunk also.
Table-ized A.I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natachata/ is here for quite some time now.
I built a "horny" chatbot in the mid 90's just for the hell of it. I never got around to putting it into production though (browser-based chat barely existed so I was kicking around a direct dialup-based service instead). But it was actually practical experience for another purpose. I learned how to build translation tables that would take groups and combos of words in order to guess what the user was talking about using a ranking system. If explicit words were not found to determine meaning, then it sort of wild-carded up the chain of guesses.
I later used similar technology to translate categories from one software system to another. They each had a different category taxonomy and I needed to translate one to the other.
Porn fuels all technology.
Table-ized A.I.
If you don't want to watch the music video with English subtitles (from MP3 Lyrics:
I know a bot,
her name is Anna, Anna is her name
And she can ban you, ban you so hard
She cleans up our channel
I want to tell you that I know a Bot
I know a bot,
her name is Anna, Anna is her name
And she can ban you, ban you so hard
She cleans up our channel
I want to tell you that I know a Bot
That always watches everyone in our channel
And sees that there is no trouble in here
And it can no way be taken over
And remember, I know this Bot
The bot that nobody can kick
And she can kick when she wants
She kicks all the spammers
Yeah, nothing can hit our Bot
(Ready for take off)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
But if people assume that they are dealing with a real human (and it doesn't even enter their mind that the person on the other end MIGHT be a computer), then I don't know how much credence you can put in the results.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
> if you cannot tell the difference between a human and a machine, then it is absurd to claim
> the human is intelligent but the machine is not. That neatly sidesteps all the impossible
> to answer questions like the precise definition of intelligence.
> Typical mathematician wriggle out move.
No it's not. It is a necessary law of logic. If two entities are not distinguishable, they must be the same entity, or contradictions may arise.
A typical "no true roman" argument.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=384051&cid=21631367
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Humm, oranges and apples ?
You are comparing a person to a group.
Again I'm (mis)quoting someone I can't recall the name: One person is intelligent, the people is dumb.
morcego
I think what this story (and your post) show is that if people come to a conversation with a particular intention, they are more open to being hoaxed. For example, you have a girl who is wanting to talk to someone about what's happened to her, or a Christian who wants to convert people, or a Russian who wants to get laid. In each of those cases people are probably too focused on getting what they want to notice inconsistencies. In other works: distracted people are dumber.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
Hard to believe he would self-publish that story. Did that really happen, or is it the self-promotional fantasy of a man who knows he'll never get laid?
http://drrobertepstein.com/downloads/FROM_RUSSIA_WITH_LOVE-Epstein-Sci_Am_Mind-Oct-Nov2007.pdf
I'll believe in the chatbot when it dives under my desk for existential reasons.
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2004/05/21/slater/
That being said, the people I care for are people whom I didn't have to enlighten, they helped enlighten me, and I didn't put a gun to their heads and say "pay my way or die" the way the tax system does to protect those who are unwilling to feed and protect themselves.
The people I care for return the favor, and neither of us puts a gun to the other's head, or hires "public officials" to tell us how to live or what to do.
Take my mom... mom's know best, right? My mom hates that I like certain high priced liquors and certain high priced cigars... she worries when I drive halfway across the country to participate in tournaments, or go racing, or camping on some remote mountain range, or fishing in some alpine river, or whatever other adventure I pick on at the time. She thought I was crazy the first time I took her to my favorite gun club and taught her to shoot paper and bowling pins. Year in and out she thought poorly of my many hobbies, attitudes and even bad habits (expensive cigars and liquor) and was upset that I spent money to make things available to me that were "bad" for my health. And then she understood. I abuse neither alcohol, nor tobacco, nor do I commit any crimes using my various arms I have trained with. Why do I not do this? I like to believe it is reason, ethics, whatever you call it. Principles to which I adhere, if nothing else. I am free to do as I please, and because nothing is denied to me, and because nobody really holds me back from doing what I enjoy, I have no urge or desire to abuse anything. When any of us is free to do as he or she pleases, and enlightened enough to know that we are each responsible for our own fates, then the likelihood of those freedoms being abused against another decreases drastically.
Society, however, is a system of restraint, developed by tyrants who were afraid that others might get to eat as well as themselves. It is a system designed by those who enjoy abusing the rights of others. Society is basically a system where those who make the rules eat better than those for whom they make and enforce those rules. Basically it is the ultimate hell, a system of "do as we say, not as we do, and shut the hell up!"
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Don't you mean Nelson Rodrigues, when he said "Toda unanimidade é burra" (All unanimity is dumb)?
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
That's from Men in Black, although someone else probably said it first.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Yes, I remember it on MiB. But I also think someone else said it first.
morcego
Ha, yes, "humanity" in this case meaning the ethos of "every man for himself".
I don't think purist communism is any better idea than purist capitalism, but we've had as many fascist capitalists as fascist communists.
You've been duped.
The article itself mentions that it's a robot "suitor". Further, if you look at the screenshot, the column of victims is titled, "The nickname or name of the lured female".
I think the submitter just made some assumptions and stated them as fact....
Is the chat bot female or male? Being duped by a *male* chat bot is just creepy.
There was a prank a few years ago, in which someone set up a chatbot much like this. The only difference was, it wasn't done to swindle people, but just out of academic curiosity. Sadly, I can no longer find the site, but I wrote down a couple particularly good quotes from it:
"It is reasonable to expect a sample of humanity taken from those who expect to get sex out of internet chat to be biased towards the less intelligent portion of humanity."
"Sam's law: As a person's sexual desire approaches infinity, their ability to administer a turing test approaches 0."
I'm not sure I'd say better, but with elections where it is generally acknowledged that the winner got the lower vote but the court decided, etc. I would not have rated you as a troll.
...especially confronted by an easily-laid women?
I think one should write an SF novel about this software.
It should be titled: "Lady Chatterbot's Lover"
It would win the Nobel prize for Literature.
The Turing test's supposed to fool the big head not the little head.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Scores of Russians fail turing test
I don't see a problem with people "abusing" the conversation. If anything, it's another level of "intelligence" to have a machine recognize sarcasm/pretenses (i.e. trolling) just as real human would. If the machine can pass the test convincing the "troll" that he/she is real by reacting to ostensibly non-sequitur statements, then and only then, would I say it passed the true Turing Test.
What someone believes is real depends on several factors. The first is a person's desire to believe. In the case of getting access to what appears to be an easy woman, much will be overlooked. Strange responses, repetition, bad grammar - all this will be forgiven in order to achieve the goal of hooking up. This type of thing also has the advantage of being a very scripted conversation, and easy to navigate through with AI.
The second is the situation. In a situation where someone does not think a chat bot would exist, or even more so with someone who does not know of the existence of chat bots, every oddity in the conversation is attributed to some human trait - distraction, defensiveness, disinterest. As an example, say I was to walk up to you on the street and strike up a conversation with you. Whatever weirdness I managed to generate would be attributed in some way - maybe I have some mental deficit, or maybe I'm not paying full attention. That's because you wouldnt suspect that I am being fed my side of the conversation through an elaborate chat-bot system, or that I myself was an advanced robot. Without those things being seeming possibilities in the mind of the person I'm talking with, my human shortcomings are the only source of attribution for my weird conversation.
Case in point: one of my early chat bots, back in 98-99 before I developed The Personality Forge, was quite a simple undeveloped bot with maybe a thousand responses, and lacking the features of my later bots, was able to start and maintain a relationship with a woman who visited my bulletin board system for months. I posted nothing about AI or chat bots on the BBS, but secretly introduced a few of them and let them interact. She had no idea that the person she was talking with might not be a person. When the bot repeated itself, she chalked it up to "catch phrases" and when the bot wsnt forthcoming with answers to her questions, she assumed the "person" was just not confident enough yet to tell her. She came back week after week talking to this chat bot, telling it about her life, bringing up old topics, and becoming friends. I made no updates to it in that time, and it had no memories. Lacking any other possibilities for the source of the conversations, she took it for human.
Such as "willful beneficence" not "taxed out of you and redistributed by bureaucracy".
I've been a big advocate of "take that bum on the street to a restaurant and buy him lunch, then pack all his left overs in a to go doggy bag... it'll be the best meal he's probably had since he's been homeless and might make him feel human again."
So I am not challenging the "do what makes you feel good, if that means helping mankind, great, but make no mistake, you're not being selfless, you're doing it because you value what you're doing more than the discomfort you go through to do it. That's how we all work as independent little "I"ndividuals, regardless of how brainwashed each one is into the whole "we" thing.
I also fall partly on the objectivist scale, but not quite as heavily as some. I think there's more to this mess than just the material world, but the reason I compare things to animals, is because 90% of humans are animals and their behavior and attitudes are EXACTLY those of mere herd animals, and not just ANY mere herd animals but DOMESTICATED herd animals awaiting slaughter, completely reacting, never actually responding to a situation.
Humans in general (exception follows this statement) fall into two categories, those who consume their own species (or at least its labor and children) and those who are consumed. There is a SMALL third group that will have no part of either (known as "neither predator nor prey, upon my own species"), and as such will also not get involved except to provide the knowledge or ideas to get whatever members of the herd wish to do so, to think for themselves. Then as time goes on, each individual member of that third grouping discovers what the earliest ones did before them. The mass does NOT want enlightenment, or freedom, some individual members do, but the vast majority just wants to feel good and join the predator class if it gets a chance and feast upon their fellows without that nasty nagging conscience that's been trained into the herd itself. If they can prey on their own kind without repercussions or nightmares afterwards, they will do so without hesitation. Those who were already bred to be the ruling caste are a separate breed apart. Vicious, predatory and wholly cannibalistic in their approach. Oddly enough, with them you can probably reason more quickly than you can with the herd. The herd will stampede or lynch you LONG before it will give your words a chance. The predatory rulers, while evil, are a very "lawful evil" and will work within the system that applies to them. More than this I cannot explain... but it can be discovered. It took me 2 years of research and experimentation, it may take many on this board longer. Some will take shorter, but at least 2 years seems to be the norm among those doing research. Good luck.
As far as I see it, the rulers will do as they please, and the sooner the herd stops being their food and power source, the rulers will topple themselves. You cannot beat them by playing THEIR game (choosing between Bill or George, since they vacation together and are good friends, just like many Pro Wrestling stars are friends, despite portraying fierce enemies on stage... in fact politics is pretty much no different than Pro Wrestling, and you've seen how many people believe that Pro Wrestling is 100% real? Politics has been around for a few millennia and has billions of adherents. A lot harder to sway.)
As I've said. I lost the delusions that I can "help mankind" or "save mankind".
To put it as Ayn Rand did... (and I came from being one of her strongest opponents for a LONG time):
"I worship individualsfor their highest possibilities as individuals, and I loathe humanity for its failure to live up to these possibilities."~Ayn Rand (personal quote)
I would agree with her, other than to say I don't loathe humanity, it merely disgusts me. I've long gotten past hatred and raging anger... those too are mere signs of the masses... emotions they cultivate and yet cannot control.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
You sound neither very sane, nor very honest.