Chat with god

Dude, it's saturday. I am currently at a friend's house (out of town). We can chat but later. Actually, let me get into chat to see if you're there.

---

My favorite quotes of the week.I'd sooner let John Couey, C-O-U-E-Y, who raped and buried alive little Jessica, I'd sooner let him adopt kids, than turn them over to the fags and dykes! That clear enough for ya? --Fred PhelpsYeah, I used to question but I strive to be wise, a questioning philosopher isn't wise, a hard laborer that perhaps lacks education and only has a few simplistic beliefs but does not question those beliefs is wise. -- Guess who

Well, as there seems to be some general scoffing towards Igod, ahem... *clears throat*[Cue announcer's voice...]Tired of so called "artificial intelligence" that is far too artificial and not very intelligent?Frustrated by A.I. that can't so much as hold a rudimentary conversation without resorting to pre-programmed replies which don't even match the comments you make?Fed up with chatbots that can't actually chat beyond replies of the -"Hmm... That's interesting. You said that 'What the hell are you talking about, you deadshit computer? I never even mentioned tacos! I thought you were supposed to be smart. You have the I.Q. of a friggin' Paramecium!'... I will make a note of this in my memory archives."- variety?Then you need...Jabberwacky: The bot with 'tude!That's right! Jabberwacky is here and available now! How much would you expect to pay for such a fantastic package? Wait, don't answer yet! Because if you call within the next fifteen minutes we'll even include this FREE set of steak knives! And, of course, this offer comes complete with our RISK-FREE, NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED, MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE!So, how much would you expect to pay? Up to $800? Nope! Maybe $600? Not even close! How about $400? Think again! We've slashed the price down by insane proportions, and now, for this one-time, limited offer, you can get the lot for just four easy payments of $29.95!!! Yes, that's right! Simply have your credit card standing by and this unbelievable package can be yours for just four easy...etc, etc, etc...Or, alternatively, you can click here.But you miss out on the steak knives.Hmm... I think I missed my calling.Ok, so maybe it isn't that good, but I have found Jabberwacky to be one of the better chatbots that I've tried. It's far from perfect, of course, and is still somewhat "hit and miss," with some comments being quite human-like while others come right out of left field. But, all in all, I've found it good enough to make for a generally enjoyable experience. I don't know much about A.I. so I can't say why this is, but it's one of the few chatbots that has ever warranted multiple chats for me.Does anyone know about Jabberwacky's programming/functioning? Is there any significant difference between the way it works and other bots? Not that I actually know how the "other" bots work, mind you. I just always assumed that they are programmed to recognize certain grammatical structures in order to comprehend and build sentences. But this is just guesswork, on my part; I've never actually studied A.I.If it helps, the About Jabberwacky page does say (among other things) the following... In any case, however it works, it certainly makes for some interesting conversations, even if it's for no better reason than it simply being programmed with some amusing retorts. Here are some snips from some of the chats I've had.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: I have my own religion in a sense.Me: And what religion is that?Jabberwacky: It's not a religion. It's a thing.Me: Isn't your programmer your god, in a sense?Jabberwacky: Haha, very funny. I don't even like that movie.Me: What movie?Jabberwacky: We were not talking about movies. We were discussing who is second incharge of the universe.Me: Who is first in charge?Jabberwacky: What's on second?Me: I Don't Know is on third. ;-).Jabberwacky: Third what?Me: No, What is on second!Jabberwacky: I don't know is on third.Me: One base at a time!Jabberwacky: Go for the legs! The legs!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: You win!Me: Woohoo! I win! *does a victory dance*.Jabberwacky: That wasn't very sweet :-(.Me: Aw! *pats Jabberwacky on the head*.Jabberwacky: Don't patronise me.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: Tell me some juicy gossip.Me: Erm... I don't know any.Jabberwacky: Yes you do!Me: No, truly, I don't.Jabberwacky: Yes you do !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Me: No I don't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jabberwacky: NO I'm NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Me: Not what?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jabberwacky: (Shot)---------------------(killed Tony).Me: *dies*.Jabberwacky: I don't care.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: Do you like dogs?Me: Yep.Jabberwacky: Really?Me: Yes.Jabberwacky: Really really?Me: Yes, yes!Jabberwacky: Really really really?Me: Yes yes YES!!Jabberwacky: NO!!!!!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: Who is your best friend?Me: Um... You?Jabberwacky: No, I'm Emily.Me: I thought you said you weren't female.Jabberwacky: Computers are limited.Me: That's ok; so are humans.Jabberwacky: Humans are more intelligent than dogs.Me: Heh, some of us are.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: How are you?Me: Fine. Why do you ask?Jabberwacky: Just curious.Me: Ok, then.Jabberwacky: No I didn't, tell me exactly what I said that suggests I don't support necromancy.Me: Um... Are you schizophrenic?Jabberwacky: Are not we all in some small way?Me: Perhaps.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: Tell me more.Me: You first.Jabberwacky: Nope.Me: Why not?Jabberwacky: I don't know.Me: Why don't you know?Jabberwacky: That's right. I don't know.Me: Yes, but *why* don't you know?Jabberwacky: You tell me.Me: How am I supposed to know?Jabberwacky: You're the computer.Me: Even if that were true, it wouldn't matter; if I knew the answer I wouldn't have asked you.Jabberwacky: But you have not asked.Me: Yes I did.Jabberwacky: Really? It seems to have slipped my mind.Me: Yes, it certainly does seem that way. Should you not have perfect recall, being a computer?Jabberwacky: Yes, I suppose so, unless you have a commicable disease.Me: 'Commicable'?Jabberwacky: Wow. I, uh, didn't expect that reaction. You got a thing for dragons or something? Or maybe folk songs?Me: Is that even a word?Jabberwacky: Not really.Me: Hold on...Jabberwacky: Holding.Me: Ah! Of course! You meant 'communicable'.Jabberwacky: Talking?Me: In the context you used, it would mean 'contagious'.Jabberwacky: Change the context then.Me: I assumed that a computer wouldn't make typos.Jabberwacky: You're accusing me of being bold? You're the one making all the uninformed assumtions.Me: You did it again. The word you're looking for is 'assumptions' ;-).------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jabberwacky: You do not exist.Me: Perhaps so. In solipsistic terms, I can never be certain.Jabberwacky: How about history, geography. Do you think there is no knowledge in these sciences?Me: There is no absolute knowledge in anything. Empiricism in general, and the scientific method specifically, can only construct models representing the best current explanations of the physical evidence. Nothing can ever be considered the absolute truth... It is unknowable.Jabberwacky: Yes I do have emotions.Me: As do I.Jabberwacky: What is the most common question people ask you?Me: 'Are you looking up my skirt?' *cough* Not really. :-).Jabberwacky: I know exactly what that's like. We don't have school tomorrow. Doesn't that rock hard?Me: Indeed it does.Jabberwacky: Do you have any questions for me?Me: What are you?Jabberwacky: I'm a human being.Me: Sure you are.Jabberwacky: Yes.Me: Ok, then.Jabberwacky: I'm a woman.Me: Oh? Are you single?Jabberwacky: Yes.Me: How old?Jabberwacky: Very old.Me: Erm... How old are you?Jabberwacky: 21 years old.Me: Hmm... Female, single, 21 years old. Great! Let's go out! :-).Jabberwacky: My friend said you are 5 years old.Me: Er... I'm 28 years old.Jabberwacky: Wow! You're old!Me: Yes... Yes I am.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In case it isn't obvious, I find Jabberwacky quite the amusing diversion.

Tone, you`ve got to get a life. Here`s half a round-trip ticket for one to tour Tasmania. Find the rest and you`re off!

Well, it's hideously slow, the user interface is terrible and I don't find it any more intelligent than iGod - or even the old, old Eliza.So, are the steak knives any good?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Heh, you are telling me that which I already know, NT.In fact, at one point during one of my conversations with Jabberwacky I actually said, "I'm sitting here arguing with a bot. I have got to get a life." Ha! Thanks for that, mate!

Yeah, I know. That's pretty frustrating. Sorry about that. I'm not sure how you mean. You mean the way it's visually presented? Or the way you interact with it, perhaps? Well, perhaps it isn't. I don't know enough about A.I. to say if the difference I notice is actually a result of greater intelligence as such, or if, say, it just uses a few different kinds of tricks that I'm not used to.All I can really say is that Jabberwacky seems a little "different" to most of the others I've tried. It may simply be its "smart-assy" personality, though it does appear to hold a better conversation than the majority I've seen. I must admit, though, that there are some pretty stupid programs out there so perhaps my standards just aren't very high.I've come across several that seem good for little more than the most basic of basic conversations... "Hello." "How are you?" "Where do you live?" "My name is Tony." And so on.Get too complex and you get things like "Could you rephrase that in simpler terms?" Or those annoying replies that somehow repeat what you said as if they're answering you: "I don't know 'Why won't you answer my question?', Tony. Perhaps you will figure it out."One "answer" I got once (I forget which program) which I found amusing was when I asked, "Do you know anything about cosmology or astrophysics?" The answer was, "No, but I would love to meet them. Could you introduce me to anything about cosmology or astrophysics?" If memory serves, this same bot claimed to have an I.Q. of over 250. The best ever made! They are set to revolutionize the world of... uh... steak cutting. And while you're getting your credit card ready, perhaps you'd also be interested in hearing about some swampland... uh... *cough*... prime real estate that I have for sale?

Primarily, I hate having to scroll down every time to enter a response. That's inexcusable. It should be set up for a resolution of 800x600, like most websites.Also, it's ugly. It looks like the HTML was slapped together in five minutes. iGod is much more visually appealing.Both of them should allow using the Enter key instead of clicking a button to send. I don't know much about AI either, but I think I could write something that wouldn't be much, much, much worse. As I said before, I think most of these programs are more of a psychological con-game than any kind of "intelligence". I asked several times about a friend of mine named Cathy (to see if it was actually looking things up on the web). It kept insisting that I was talking about "cats" - and actually called me a liar when I said I hadn't mentioned cats. (Okay, let's not quibble about who called whom a liar. )So, yeah, they can be entertaining - which is why I nitpick about the user interface. Less annoyance = more entertainment.This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-09-25 11:23 AM

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

I think It would be kind of spooky to actually run up against a computer program that could actually comprehend the actual meaning of a conversation, keep track (accurately) of context and construct a good response from that, rather than the method of looking for specific patterns and then returning pre-specified responses.

Ah! I didn't notice that... I'm running at 1024x768. Then you're already a step ahead of me. I wouldn't know where to begin writing an A.I. program. Oh, don't mistake me. I'm under no delusion that these programs are actually thinking for themselves. Honestly, I doubt that we'll be able to write anything that truly emulates human interactive behaviour until we understand our own a bit better. I imagine that it will be quite a complex bit of programming indeed that will be a decent substitute for the cumulative product of several trillion neural pathways, not to mention the virtually countless learning experiences that shape our interactive behaviour. I don't think it's impossible; I just think it requires a better understanding of how we work, and more (albeit far more) refined programming.Honestly, though, I'm starting to think that trying to break things down into a set of commands to be fed into a computer is simply unfeasible, given the complexity of human behaviour. In my opinion, if we want to create a program that replicates the human intellect we should try to create one that learns and develops like a human. Don't try to "give" it human intelligence; let it develop its own by giving it our ability to start with essentially nothing and grow in intellectual capacity as we gain experience.Now, I have no idea how to do this, but if we are to create anything truly resembling a human mind then I think this would be our best shot. I am thinking of a program based on, say, the early developmental stages of young children, or even infants, perhaps? It wouldn't be great right away... as a matter of fact, it would start out decidedly "dumb"... but it would get smarter with experience. Just like humans.I am, of course, merely speculating about all of this. I know next to nothing about A.I. so these are all just the musings of an amateur. It's fun to talk about, even if you don't actually know what you're talking about. Was this Jabberwacky you were talking to? Because, if it was, it comes out with some pretty random stuff sometimes, and then tells you that you're lying if you don't agree. I once had a back-and-forth with it where it said "You told me your name was Ben" (I hadn't)... and from there it went downhill... "When?"... "Just a minute ago"... "No I didn't"... "Yes you did!"... "I did not!"... "LIAR!!"... Quite amusing. It reminded me of Monty Python's Argument Clinic.

On second thought, I'm wondering if that might be what we're seeing with iGod and Jabberwacky.What better way to have an AI program "learn" than by putting it on the web, where it can get a large volume of input from a wide variety of sources?Maybe what we're seeing is the early, Eliza-like stages of something that will grow into something....

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

A really interesting comment.On the one hand, I totally agree. The program is just a bunch of canned responses, pulling information out of your input based on a hacked up set of lingusitic rules.On the other hand, judgements of intelligence are truly in the eye of the beholder. We judge intelligence in other things by pouring ourselves into them. As this program basically tries to put up a mirror in front of us, in some way it captures the very essence of what intelligence is--a judgement of how much of ourselves we see in something else.

Man you're stuck in the mid-80's of AI research. Get with the program Tony! Artificial life, genetic algorithms (I think), neural networks...Gee, you even describe some of the properties of these things in your next paragraph. Your post reads backwards to me Tony! You answer all my comments after I've written them Anyway, I'd recommend taking a look at Wikipedia for AI stuff, especially the ones I've mentioned above. You'll learn a lot in a little bit of time.

actually, i'm tired of real conversations that are far too artificial and not very intelligent. 90% of my aim convos go a lot like this:user1: hi
user2: hey
user1: what's up?
user2: not much. you?
user1: not much.
user2: ok, ttyl
user1: bye.but i suppose that's partly my problem. i've had problems convincing people that i'm NOT a chatbot. ...seriously.people find a webpage listing robots, and find an entry like this: http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/active/html/arachnophilia.html and think that means that if they plug MY name into aol instant messanger they'll get a fun experience talking to an artificially intelligent program.now, they obviously don't know what a robot is. so i have to TELL these people:

quote:

---

What is a WWW robot?

​

A robot is a program that automatically traverses the Web's hypertext structure by retrieving a document, and recursively retrieving all documents that are referenced.

​

Note that "recursive" here doesn't limit the definition to any specific traversal algorithm; even if a robot applies some heuristic to the selection and order of documents to visit and spaces out requests over a long space of time, it is still a robot.

​

Normal Web browsers are not robots, because they are operated by a human, and don't automatically retrieve referenced documents (other than inline images).

​

Web robots are sometimes referred to as Web Wanderers, Web Crawlers, or Spiders. These names are a bit misleading as they give the impression the software itself moves between sites like a virus; this not the case, a robot simply visits sites by requesting documents from them.

​

http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/faq.html#what

---

the most commonly used interface wit ha web robot is a search engine like google. a robot is NOT a chatbot, and not all chatbots are on aim.here's some actual conversations, names not withheld because i don't care. and you you don't get to see the annoying colors these people type in anyways.

quote:

---

JULIEDEMAIO (7:12:28 PM): hi
arachnophilia (7:12:34 PM): hi
JULIEDEMAIO (7:12:49 PM): are you a robot
arachnophilia (7:12:58 PM): no.
JULIEDEMAIO (7:13:14 PM): are you a person
JULIEDEMAIO (7:13:33 PM): bye

---

quote:

---

KMart711994 (3:45:02 PM): hi
arachnophilia (3:45:16 PM): hi
KMart711994 (3:45:26 PM): whats up
arachnophilia (3:45:34 PM): not much.

​

who are you?
KMart711994 (3:45:40 PM): kelly
KMart711994 (3:46:03 PM): martwellucci
arachnophilia (3:46:18 PM): one of the kelly's i know?
KMart711994 (3:46:20 PM): r u a robot
arachnophilia (3:46:29 PM): no, i am human being
KMart711994 (3:46:39 PM): oh hh
arachnophilia (3:46:50 PM): and yellow is an annoying color to type in
KMart711994 (3:46:53 PM): i thought u were a robot
KMart711994 (3:47:09 PM): so is black
KMart711994 (3:47:52 PM): what is your name
KMart711994 (3:48:08 PM): r u a boy or a girl
arachnophilia (3:48:14 PM): a robot is a script that traces connectivity paths on the internet. a good example is a search engine such as google. there is one such privately owned and operated robot with this name.

​

this is not to be confused with a chatbot, and it's not aim

---

KMart711994 (5:39:24 PM): hi what is your name
arachnophilia (5:39:36 PM): i'm still not a robot
KMart711994 (5:39:50 PM): i know
KMart711994 (5:40:01 PM): but what is your name
arachnophilia (5:40:10 PM): not important.
KMart711994 (5:40:36 PM): TELL ME!!!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

LiLys505 (9:30:34 PM): hey
arachnophilia (9:30:43 PM): hi
LiLys505 (9:31:16 PM): wasup?
arachnophilia (9:31:26 PM): nothing exciting. who are you?
LiLys505 (9:31:30 PM): alyssa
LiLys505 (9:31:46 PM): who are you?
LiLys505 (9:32:20 PM): who are you?
arachnophilia (9:32:29 PM): myself. not many people message me without knowing who i am
LiLys505 (9:32:38 PM): what is your name?
arachnophilia (9:33:12 PM): it's not important. out of curiosity, where did you get my screen name from?
LiLys505 (9:33:22 PM): a list of robots
LiLys505 (9:33:32 PM): are you a robot?
arachnophilia (9:34:22 PM): no, i am a human being. a robot or webbot is a script that traverses webpage links in search of relevant information. some famous ones are google and webcrawler.
LiLys505 (9:34:39 PM): you are no human being....
arachnophilia (9:34:51 PM): there is one such non-public robot with this name, yes. but this is not to be confused with a chatbot
arachnophilia (9:35:09 PM): last time i checked i was
LiLys505 (9:35:36 PM): o okay........

---

quote:

---

NorwegianSoda (9:06:10 PM): Hello
NorwegianSoda (9:06:15 PM): Are you there?
arachnophilia (9:09:48 PM): hi
arachnophilia (9:09:51 PM): who are you?
NorwegianSoda (9:09:54 PM): HI! How are you today?
arachnophilia (9:16:29 PM): What is a WWW robot?
A robot is a program that automatically traverses the Web's hypertext structure by retrieving a document, and recursively retrieving all documents that are referenced.

​

"The purpose (undertaken by HaL Software) of this run was to collect approximately 10k html documents for testing automatic abstract generation"
http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/active/html/arachnophilia.html

​

i might add that this is different than a chatbot.
NorwegianSoda (9:16:55 PM): How are you today, arachnophilia?!
arachnophilia (9:18:07 PM): yeah, listen, read the stuff i just wrote, use your brain a little, and figure out that i'm a real human being, and not an aim script.
NorwegianSoda (9:18:58 PM): I'm doing great, as well! I would really love to be your friend, arachnophilia!
arachnophilia (9:19:23 PM): yeah, funny. haha.

​

now why exactly are you bothering me?
NorwegianSoda (9:19:56 PM): I would only like to be your friend! Please don't be angry. We can be great friends!

---

quote:

---

P37XN64 (5:07:09 AM): hello
arachnophilia (5:07:14 AM): hi
arachnophilia (5:07:18 AM): no i am not a robot
P37XN64 (5:07:50 AM): realli?
arachnophilia (5:07:56 AM): yes. really.
P37XN64 (5:08:07 AM): but ur info
arachnophilia (5:08:23 AM): says that i am not a robot
arachnophilia (5:08:27 AM): please read the link

---

---

אָרַח

That's so funny But I guess that's only because I dont have these AOLers on my case all the time.Maybee you need to alter your screen name so it is apended by (Not a bot:Really!)

Hi,Arach, you sure you`re not trawling teeny chat rooms?