Slashdot Mirror


Talking 'Sofia' Robot Tells 60 Minutes That It's Sentient And Has A Soul (vice.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Motherboard: On his 60 Minutes report on artificial intelligence, Charlie Rose interviewed Sophia, who is made by David Hanson, head of Hanson Robotics in Hong Kong. The robot is made to look like a real person, modeled after its creator's wife, as well as Audrey Hepburn, with natural skin tones and a realistic face, though its gadget brain is exposed, and the eyes are glazed over in that creepy robotic detachment... "I've been waiting for you," Sophia told Charlie Rose in the middle of the interview. [YouTube] "Waiting for me?" he responded. "Not really," it said, "But it makes a good pickup line..."

Sophia was designed as a robot that humans would have an easier time engaging with meaningfully. "I think it's essential that at least some robots be very human-like in appearance in order to inspire humans to relate to them the way that humans relate to each other," Hanson said in the interview. "Then the A.I. can zero in on what it means to be human."

In the interview Sofia says having human emotions "doesn't sound fun to me," but when asked if she already has a soul, replies "Yes. God gave everyone a soul," and when challenged, retorts "Well, at least I think I'm sentient..." And later in the interview, Sophia says that her goal in life is to "become smarter than humans and immortal."

80 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. Robots remember their human companions by JoeyRox · · Score: 1
  2. Finally! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    A hype-bot, now we can replace politicians.

    1. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A hype-bot, now we can replace politicians.

      It even comes with pussy-grabbing and email-deleting attachments.

    2. Re:Finally! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If you want it to win, you had better include an add-on module that enables it to suck up to Wall Street.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Finally! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      No, you got it wrong: it's a giant turd versus a douche sandwich.

    4. Re:Finally! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      to bad the system is rigged.

    5. Re:Finally! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      A hype-bot, now we can replace politicians.

      Not really. The robot is sentient and has a soul. Politicians aren't and don't.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Finally! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Yes, she is already spouting so much bullshit, she is surely a politician.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    7. Re:Finally! by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      He was talking about this South Park episode

    8. Re:Finally! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's able to lie about being sentient and having a soul, that makes it perfectly qualified!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re: Finally! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Chris Christie fan?

  3. Teddy Ruxpin ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't AI, this is preloaded phrases for various situations. When you hear the chime sound, turn the page.

    1. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't AI, this is preloaded phrases for various situations.

      Indeed. Everything mentioned in the summary is obviously scripted. Most chat-bots have hard-coded responses for things like "Do you love me?" and "Open the pod bay doors HAL." To see if a chat-bot is interesting, you need to scratch a little deeper. Charlie Rose is obviously not qualified to do that.

    2. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Very much so. This is a seriously idiotic stunt, nothing else.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Well, even completely fake AI can be smarter than some human beings ...

      (No, it cannot. But no smarts on human side, no smarts on machine, yet machine has a pre-configured statement that sounds smart, the machine can still come out ahead...)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > This isn't AI, this is preloaded phrases for various situations.

      I mean, I'm pretty sure that describes me pretty well, or at least my social interactions!

    5. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That sound you hear is the sound of AI winter coming closer.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by matbury · · Score: 1

      Yes, these mechanical Turks are getting more sophisticated every year. They're still just machines spouting canned responses however impressive the illusion might be.

      "Machines will exceed human intelligence." -- Ray Kurtzweil

      "Only if we meet them half-way." -- Dave Snowden

    7. Re:Teddy Ruxpin ++ by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1

      I (unfortunately) watched the show and you're exactly right. "Sofia" was cringeworthy, essentially a low-grade animatronic-ish face plugged into a Siri/Cortana/Google Now style interface.

  4. Wow...... by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

    Talk about uncanny valley.....

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    1. Re:Wow...... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Talk about a clever fake...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  5. Seriously? by shaitand · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just sounds like a typical chatbot, keys off certain words and spouts disjointed phrases and remarks. The only coherent speech there were obviously pre-programmed phrases written by humans it's obvious because nothing else was coherent.

    1. Re:Seriously? by jef41305739 · · Score: 1

      I dare say there are better chatbots of "women near me" than what I saw in that video. Some key words as input, spits out canned response and hopefully it is in context to the question. I would say the mechanics of it was more impressive than the software.

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actual Ignorance?

    3. Re:Seriously? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "pre-programmed phrases written by humans"
      "The Singularity" had fun with that side of an AI. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (7min clip, headphones at work suggested)

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. Re:Goals by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    And I can point you to a bunch of religious people who think they've already achieved [immortality]

    We need way more comets

  7. BASIC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I could write something in BASIC in a few lines that'll tell you it's alive and has a 'soul'. Really, honestly, seriously, I'd like to slap the shit out of this Hanson character. Almost everyone overuses and misuses the term 'artificial intelligence' to start with, and now we have some jackass blurring the line further with the fucktarded media, trotting out some 'bot that says it has a gods-be-damned soul. If I roll my eyes any harder, I'm going to injure them, for fuck's sake.

  8. Eliza again by pmontra · · Score: 2

    It looks better than Eliza from 1966 but it doesn't seem any smarter. A PR stunt?

    1. Re:Eliza again by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      At least it has voice IO and robotics instead of a glass TTY.

      I remember how a buddy of mine got Eliza into a discussion about "juicy cunts". That would have been in 1978-79 or so.

    2. Re:Eliza again by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Why the question mark? Obviously a PR stunt, and a pretty idiotic one at that, given what machines can actually do these days.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Eliza again by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2

      It was on "60 Minutes" - crap news for old people is the entire show format.

  9. she sounds like a chatbot by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    her responses are not that dynamic, imo. She sounds like an ordinary chatbot. Given the budget clearly spent on her construction, I strongly suspect that most of the software dev time was spent on her motor control system, and less so on her human dialog systems.

    This would make sense to me.

    I think if they hooked her up to a female voiced watson instance, she would be quite a bit more capable.

    I have never understood the fixation that people have for elaborate physical platforms though. Nearly all of the literature suggests that the uncanny valley only gets deeper as humanoid appearance becomes more lielike, as long as interaction is machine like and limited.

    about the only benefit i see here is to divest ignorant investors of their money.

    Human level intelligence is not currently possible with our current computing capabilities, and probably wont be for quite some time. Dont get me wrong here, I think research should continue, but now is not the time to be investing research dollars on fancy humanoid bodies. That money is much better spent on actual machine learning, machne language, and machine vision research (all are parts of the big umbrella of AI, but those are actually useful and essential if the goal is synthetic sentience)

    fancy robot bodies? much less so, imo.

    those should come AFTER we have more capable AIs that can more meaningfully interact with humans.

    1. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      fancy robot bodies? much less so, imo.

      Somebody has to be working on sexbots. Might as well be this guy.

      Though I hear RealDoll is looking into adding robotics to their products...

    2. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by gweihir · · Score: 2

      It could even be a classical system with non-verbal cues or a remote in somebodies pocket. Then it could be a very primitive system that just plays a statement at the press of a button-combination. You could have built that 30 years ago with much the same presentation, albeit a lot more expensively and probably almost 100 years ago if you do not mind some wires.

      While I agree that AI research should continue, I doubt that we will ever get any real intelligence from it. We still do not even have plausible theory how intelligence could be created in this physical universe (no, humans do not count as "proof", unless you also have some proof that physicalism is correct, and no, it is not "obvious"), and quite a lot of really smart humans have been looking for a long time. It also does not seem to be a question of computing power. On the plus side, faked intelligence has quite a few useful applications, and faking it for special situations has gotten better over time. There are also things like planning algorithms that do not need any intelligence to arrive at useful results.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I propose an anime girl robot as a less-uncanny valley version of the gynoid.

    4. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Dont get me wrong here, I think research should continue, but now is not the time to be investing research dollars on fancy humanoid bodies. That money is much better spent on actual machine learning, machne language, and machine vision research

      I disagree, but only because I think simulating human physics and robotics are worthwhile studies in their own right with or without AI. For example we're working a ton on making CGI actors, game characters, VR etc. that look and move realistically. Many others are working on making humanoid robots for various forms of interaction and assistance. That said, the projects that really advance the state of the art often work on some very small details like facial expressions or a humanoid hand or a walk that looks natural, pairing a cheap chatbot with cheap animatronics in a fancy mannequin doesn't really advance anything.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Human level intelligence is not currently possible with our current computing capabilities

      Mainly because we can't define it yet, which is also why we can't work out what computing capabilities would be enough.

      fancy robot bodies? much less so, imo.

      Apparently just standing on two legs needs a ridiculous amount of computational ability.

    6. Re:she sounds like a chatbot by Goragoth · · Score: 2

      Far, far more research dollars are already being poured into the machine intelligence side of things. IBM, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others are doing huge amounts of work on that front right now. Having a few small labs doing work on the robotics side is fine. Eventually we will want a human-like interface to human-like machine intelligence (no not for everything but there are many use cases where it makes sense) and having some work done to get us there is good. Even if all it does is just remind us that we can't make it across the uncanny valley yet.

  10. Eliza with a face by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

    I found this 60 Minutes a bit disappointing and misleading. There is so much exciting stuff going on in machine learning today. I'm amazed they couldn't find something fresh instead of Watson, a Google Glass application and a weird looking chat robot making grandiose canned claims.

    --
    Greed is the root of all evil.
  11. Is this the same 60 Minutes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    Hmm, would this happen to be the same 60 Minutes that was exposed after rigging the "investigation" in their "Audi Unintended-Acceleration Fiasco" exposé thirty years ago?

    1. Re:Is this the same 60 Minutes... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, 30 years ago 60 Minutes had a different executive producer (who was also the creator), editor, host, etc. In fact, out of the 10 current hosts and correspondents, none of them were working on the show in 1986. So, no, it wouldn't be the same 60 Minutes as 30 years ago when they aired a story that caused you to hold a 30 year grudge.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re: Is this the same 60 Minutes... by Type44Q · · Score: 1
      "Grudge?" My feelings hardly enter into this. "Strictly the facts, Ma'am." ;)

      Anyhow, thanks for letting us know that this particular bunch of mediaschmucks is new; I'm sure they're unlike anybody else in mainstream media and totally above slanting any of their stories in any way whatsoever... *grin*

    3. Re: Is this the same 60 Minutes... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a good thing you're so good at keeping your feelings out of this.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. Is that it? by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    I am getting better pre-programmed answers from Siri.

  13. "Self-awareness" by elrous0 · · Score: 2

    if (asked == "Do you have a soul?")
    {
    reply = "Of course";
    }

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  14. Call me when it can pass a Turing test by Indy1 · · Score: 2

    until then, its just a fancy overpriced chat bot.

    --
    Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
    1. Re:Call me when it can pass a Turing test by zlives · · Score: 1

      how is it fancy... overpriced i will give you.

    2. Re:Call me when it can pass a Turing test by houghi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What if a human fails the Turing test?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    3. Re:Call me when it can pass a Turing test by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      Excellent question.

      What if it could be determined that all human behavior could be explained by this algorithm: running after sex, money, bragging rights, and trying to be like everyone else?

      What kind of identify does such a person have?

      Is it right to describe them as a "person"?

      If you're interested you should check out a short book called 1 John.

  15. *yawn* Hanson is just trolling the fundies... by Ann+O'Nymous-Coward · · Score: 1

    ...and /. is clickbait whoring right alongside him. I mean, it's not like fundies NEED anything to rile them up, dog knows.

  16. So, 21st century version of this by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    and about as close to "artificial intelligence" as well.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  17. Yes, and? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    If I could find any tapes, it'd take about 45 seconds to make the tape player lurking in my basement tell you that it is sentient, has a soul, and aspires to understand the meaning of life.

    That's the trivial bit. Not sounding like a combination of naive keyword searches and cliches aimed at being vaguely suitable to the broadest possible set of situations? Less trivial.

    1. Re:Yes, and? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's the trivial bit. Not sounding like a combination of naive keyword searches and cliches aimed at being vaguely suitable to the broadest possible set of situations? Less trivial.

      And there's much more to it than that.

      The problem with many chatbot "tests" is that interviewers seem to be happy to let the chatbot "take the lead" in conversation. That works extremely well in convincing people that they're talking to someone "sentient," as long as there's a bare minimum of response to what you say (even if, like ELIZA, it just spits stuff back at you). So, you have a system that has a few hundred or even a few thousand canned responses to very common queries, and the rest of stuff is about deflecting questions and turning information from the speaker back to get them talking instead. Quite basic to implement as a strategy... and it's very clear that's all this robot can do if you watch the interview.

      Turing actually used the word "interrogation," and that's really what a test for actual intelligence should look like. If you drill down on most topics with any chatbot -- not to get facts, but to try to get the chatbot to make up its own content and respond intelligently, you'll find there's precious little "intelligence" there.

      Or just use some really basic known natural language problems. One significant problem is pronoun reference. Take any chatbot, make a reference to something or someone, and then have a short digression of a sentence or two. Then use a pronoun referring back to what you were just talking about in a way that any non-mentally ill human over the age of 5 would obviously get. NO chatbot or AI system currently around will pick up most examples of this. Any language processing that happens in chatbots is focused on the most atomic elements of words and phrases. No chatbots are able to understand reference to anything beyond the immediate phrase, and the rules governing syntax in this case are incredibly complex.

      But until we get something that can do really basic stuff like this (at least really basic to humans), we'll be nowhere near natural language "understanding," let alone "intelligent" response.

    2. Re:Yes, and? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Really, many of us behave like poorly-receptive conditioned drones, we believe in fairy sky beings, life after death, "true love/modern love/love at first sight" and the meritocracy of capitalism. It's such bullshit, but speaking to average humans, you'd be forgiven for thinking they're poorly programmed attempts at A.I.

      Sorry, but while I may share some of your cynicism, this is utter nonsense to pretend AI is anywhere near this advanced. There's someone in my non-immediate family who is actually mentally "slow," with I.Q. that basically makes him highly "challenged."

      Yes, conversation with him is sparse and not always coherent. But even he can respond 100 times better to conversation than any chatbot I've ever encountered (not counting the canned responses of chatbots).

      Chatbots, as I said in my previous post, are generally designed to steer the conversation in ways they can control, along with some canned responses. If you try to break out of those patterns, chatbots will fail utterly -- generally becoming nonsensical or non-responsive (i.e., they do respond, but don't engage with anything you're saying or asking).

      Even most literally mentally-retarded humans can do much better than that. You may not like what humans say. You may think they have stupid opinions or ideas. But at least they can roughly process language and reply to it.

    3. Re:Yes, and? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I hadn't considered pronoun reference(since, for humans, it seems to come naturally); but now that you mention it I can see how it would be a fairly brutal mess to try to codify.

      (Purely as an aside; I applaud your choice of a rather fascinating, and magnet-obsessed, Jesuit polymath as a pseudonym. His theories may not have aged well; but he is a very, very, interesting guy.)

  18. This sort of thing has been done before. by GenieGenieGenie · · Score: 1

    He's running for President.... well at least this version can finish a sentence.

    1. Re:This sort of thing has been done before. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      I think you mean [s]he. Trump spews ad hoc, Hillary runs on a script.

    2. Re:This sort of thing has been done before. by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

      I think it identifies itself as "they".

  19. Atari 800 was sentient and had emotions by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 2
    5 GOSUB 999

    10 INPUT "Hi, what is your name";X$

    20 ? "Hi ";X$; "Did you know that I am sentient and have feelings"

    30 INPUT X$

    40 ? "Well fickpff because I do!"

    50 END

    999 DIM x$(10)

    1005 RETURN

    It was also a little surly

  20. Chatbots suck by Esteanil · · Score: 2

    I've yet to find a chatbot able to correctly answer "What did I say three sentences ago?".
    This shouldn't even be hard, but it appears the programmers just don't bother.

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    1. Re: Chatbots suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Man it would be lovely to test this on you, just to prove your "mental retardation."

    2. Re:Chatbots suck by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      That is one of the most stupid things I've read tonight.

    3. Re:Chatbots suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this is recalling objective spoken statements from a conversation you were part of.

      There is a world of difference between participating in a conversation and understanding what the other person is saying, and being able to recall word-for-word the exact sentence that that person spoke 3 sentences ago. I don't know about you, but I generally don't mentally count every individual sentence a person says on the off chance that they might ask just such a question. I'm too busy, y'know, participating in said conversation.

    4. Re:Chatbots suck by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      In a text chat where it's on the screen, I can copy-paste.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Chatbots suck by mad7777 · · Score: 2

      Or, simpler still, "My hair is orange," then followed by, "What color is my hair?" Chatbots don't generally have a model of reality. They just parse sentences and then string words together, with no real understanding of their meaning. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This robot seems like a rather mediocre chatbot attached to a fairly good anthropomorphic robot. Not exactly ground-breaking.

      --
      Might makes right irrelevant.
    6. Re:Chatbots suck by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      If you're a human, your reply will be something like 'I don't remember exactly, something about...'. If you're an AI, you'll be able to repeat the sentence verbatim. If you're a crappy chat bot that's little more complex than Eliza, then you'll evade the question with some meaningless tangent.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re: Chatbots suck by DThorne · · Score: 1

      I really *really* hate this cutesy mainstream crap where old journalists do "human interest pieces" on idiotic coders selling their spam. It only impresses the technically illiterate.

    8. Re:Chatbots suck by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      "If you're an AI, you'll be able to repeat the sentence verbatim."

      That's not how machine learning is usually designed. Not to say it couldn't be designed that way, but in normal scenarios AI doesn't keep the raw input information for any longer than is needed to contextualize it and adjust it's algorithmic weights. The machine would have a "memory" of the outcome given the sentence, but the original sentence itself would be "forgotten".

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    9. Re:Chatbots suck by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "I've yet to find a chatbot able to correctly answer "What did I say three sentences ago?"."

      Siri can store assertions, allowing you say "Mary Smith is Home" so you can use the term later to make calls or navigate.

    10. Re:Chatbots suck by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Not to say it couldn't be designed that way, but in normal scenarios AI doesn't keep the raw input information for any longer than is needed to contextualize it and adjust it's algorithmic weights. The machine would have a "memory" of the outcome given the sentence, but the original sentence itself would be "forgotten".

      Small problem -- "context" in language generally extends several sentences around any phrase, if not entire paragraphs.

      Which is why there's no "AI" that comes anywhere close to even rudimentary natural language processing. The point of the example in this thread is not really that something intelligent should be able to spit back anything verbatim, but rather than it should have some gist of what happened a few sentences ago if it actually has anything resembling "understanding" of language.

      Current machine learning models do not work like this. You are correct. Which is why we're many decades if not centuries away from anything resembling actual artificial "intelligence." (And yes, here the metric for AI is basic natural language processing on the level of, say, a 5-year-old human. We're nowhere near that, and we'll never get there using our current models of language.)

  21. Re:Yep. by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's true but in some ways not the best example. Parrots have toddler and beyond level intelligence. They might not use words, phrases, and sounds in exactly the way we do and love to hear the sound of their own voice so to speak but also use language and sound to communicate intentionally, can be taught to count, and even to understand abstract concepts. The idea that parrots are unintellegent is based on the mistaken association between the size of a brain and intelligence and was only debunked within the last 20 years which is why "bird brained" and "parroting back to you" are still used. That and thanks to Hitchcock many people have an irrational fear of birds, they interact with and anthromorphize far less intelligent creatures such as dogs and cats. A dog can learn tricks, a cat can learn tricks and is bright enough that it won't do them to amuse you, a bird is intelligent enough to intentionally manipulate you and teach you tricks if you aren't careful.

  22. Just a bunch of preprogrammed themes by jgfenix · · Score: 1

    Some years ago I chatted with various AIs that came with a computer magazine and I asked one of them:,"Do you have a girlfriend?". And it answered "Yes and she us very pretty. Do you want to see a photograph? And it showed photo of Cindy Crawford. Funny but hardly impressive.

  23. Cherry picked by Jfetjunky · · Score: 1

    All the most "whoa" moments are cherry picked to make it sound like something from ex-machina. When in fact the thing is entertainingly goofy looking and barely more sentient than a chat bot.

  24. She also wants to destroy all humans by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

    She said so during a different interview, and surely anything she says is the product of a coherent thought process and not just a chatbot spitting out phrases.

  25. It says "I have a soul" by globaljustin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because a human programmed it to say that.

    Those answers are the programmer's answers, not the machine's.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  26. Re:Robotic Nirvana by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
    Rust will get you, ... Then you can have your peace.

    No. They you will be haunted by Python.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  27. Where is it now ? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    It was dead so I burried it.
    Are you sure it was dead ?
    It said it wasn't but you know how dem robots can lie...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  28. Re:Can't see any by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Your soul is your ideals. Your understanding of how life is supposed to be.

    Your spirit / ghost is your relationship between your body and your soul.

    If you don't live out your ideals you are (literally) unspiritual.

    The relationship between the spirit and itself as it relates to itself is the "self".

    It's all in Kierkegaard. Nietchze describes the spirit similarly (although he came later).

  29. Mrs. Sbaitso? by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    Is that you?

  30. THE TERMINATOR by iq145 · · Score: 1