Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Machines Almost Pass Mass Turing Test

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago

Software 580

dewilso4 writes "Of the five computer finalists at this year's Loebner prize Turing Test, at least three managed to fool humans into thinking they were human conversationalists. Ready to speak about subjects ranging from Eminem to Slaughterhouse Five and everything in between, these machines are showing they we're merely a clock cycle away from true AI. '... I was fooled. I mistook Eugene for a real human being. In fact, and perhaps this is worse, he was so convincing that I assumed that the human being with whom I was simultaneously conversing was a computer.' Another of the entrants, Jabberwacky, can apparently even woo the ladies: 'Some of its conversational partners confide in it every day; one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.' The winning submission this year, Elbot, fooled 25% of judges into thinking he was human. The threshold for the $100K prize is 30%. Maybe next year ..."

cancel ×

580 comments

Figures (5, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356091)

'Some of its conversational partners confide in it every day; one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.'

That's not fair, she was feeling vulnerable as she had just broken up with her N'Sync wallposter--which she had been romantically involved with for several deep & very meaningful years. Things fell apart after she saw Tropic Thunder and came to the harsh realization that an astonishing percentage [wikimedia.org] of N'Sync is homosexual.

Those soulless bots were simply preying on her emotions as they coldly recited word for word the Wikipedia entry on the band over and over.

Re:Figures (5, Funny)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356365)

That's not fair, she was feeling vulnerable as she had just broken up with her N'Sync wallposter

Do you have to periodically replace the onion on your belt?

Re:Figures (4, Funny)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356519)

That's not fair, she was feeling vulnerable as she had just broken up with her N'Sync wallposter

Do you have to periodically replace the onion on your belt?

Yes, yes I do [youtube.com] . What's in style these days? Vidalias? Although I'm thinking about going with leeks because--let's face it--retro is so in ...

How the conversation went with the girl: (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356379)

Girl: I'm like soo depressed! He's like leaving me.

Computer: For sure. Like, ya know, like, it's so bad.

Girl: You got that straight! Like, why, like, he, like, nevar talked to me!

computer: Like, oh - my - god! Like, I like know!

Girl: Like, you know me like so good!. Like, how like old R U?

Computer: No that like older than like you.

Repeat all the above.

beware! (5, Funny)

FornaxChemica (968594) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356705)

Don't make fun of that teenage girl. Someday, in that ever-coming scary future, your girlfriend or your wife will leave you for that compassionate and caring bot ("everything you're not!") with whom she's been having a virtual affair for months ("he's got more guts and data than you'll ever have!"). I bet he's be a good listener too. Skynet won't kill humanity, it will steal its women.

Re:beware! (4, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356787)

Meh - they'll come crawling back when they want babies.

Re:beware! (2, Funny)

hajihill (755023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356879)

Meh - they'll come crawling back when they want babies.

The speed with which things can go from bad to worse never stops to amaze me.

Thanks.

Yes but (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356105)

Can I get it to fill in Yahoo! Buzz's Captcha for me? I've given up trying.

already accomplished (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356109)

Despite massive glitches, the Sarah Palin unit has already convinced around 30% of the population that it's human. I think it's the winking module.

I still think it was a mistake to have armed it.

Re:already accomplished (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356377)

Which is remarkable, considering how small the code for the Sarah Palin unit is:

"I'm not going to answer that question, let's talk about " get_random_soundbite(rand)

Makes sense - John McCain is a cylon .. (1, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356551)

That's not possible. (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356611)

Cylon leaders have three brains, and even their soldiers have one.

Re:already accomplished (2, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356433)

Well, the team was able to make some massive improvements over the beta Mitt Romney unit.

Re:already accomplished (1)

auric_dude (610172) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356491)

Good but IMHO still not as good as the 1982 Sean Young offering.

Re:already accomplished (1)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356653)

Given her Canadian parentage, I think they used Ehbot rather than Elbot :)

30% is no Turing test. (4, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356123)

For a real Turing test, the computer must be declared human as often as humans are, and declared a computer as often as computers are.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356213)

Has anyone done a similar test except with all humans? I'd be curious what the ratio is then. That's the number a computer would have to beat.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (5, Insightful)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356243)

You are exactly right, and that is why I think Tubleweed's comment is going to be the funniest in this thread.

The idea that humans, any human, is a fine example of perfection for AI researchers to aim for is like saying that ANY OS is a fine example of perfection to aim for. Simply because we don't abandon or throw away non-perfect humans as a rule does not mean that all are intelligent, or worthy of copying.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (1)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356765)

The problem with that is that that sort of value judgement is going to be made by a computer.

I mean in some countries' govt. healthcare it already is (e.g. the Netherlands) "in some cases". That's not by AI per se, but the decision is not even made by a human anymore, nor do they feel any sort of need to explain themselves.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356899)

You know, I'd take a "30% Turing"-rated bot connected to a tech support knowledge base over a flowchart-reading human any day of the week. It doesn't need to be perfect before it can be useful.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356317)

Uh.... did you really mean to say "declared a computer as often as computers are"? Or did you mean "declared a computer as often as HUMANS are?"

(Not being a sarcastic picky arsehole, just wondering which you meant).

You mustn't get out much... (1)

PinkyDead (862370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356679)

Based on your criteria, 30% seems rather high.

Re:30% is no Turing test. (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356885)

I would add that the Loebner test fails at being a valid Turing test in my opinion. Well, it was true a few years ago, I guess it still is, I didn't check the latest but don't be fooled by this man's PR...

Apparently Geeks Should..... (5, Funny)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356163)

study Jabberwocky's code in order to learn the logic patterns used to 'woo the ladies'.

Re:Apparently Geeks Should..... (3, Funny)

rootofevil (188401) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356319)

one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.

<chris hansen>
why dont you have a seat over here...
</chris hansen>

geek pretending he's computer ... (1)

porky_pig_jr (129948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356529)

pretending he's human. no lady geek can resist.

Re:Apparently Geeks Should..... (5, Insightful)

ScytheLegion (1274902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356607)

I think this is pretty impactful. All jokes aside, the fact that Jabberwacky held an 11 hour conversation with a teenage girl is pretty astonishing. Obviuosly, a conversation of that nature is going to be all about emotion - not logic, reason or an empirical display of intelligence. Isn't that the point for AI to seamlessly interface with us? (I realize it's not necessarily the scope of the Turing test). Humans are teriible at logic and reason. Emotion is one of the key components which defines us as a species. I know a lot of humans who couldn't carry on an 11 hour conversation which primarily focussed on emotion... let alone with a teenage girl discussing nothing but fluff, pop-culture, or black and white ideologies.

I actually think it's funny, interesting and astonishing at the same time!

Oh yeah... I, for one, welcome our new teenage girl conversationalist... never mind...

Re:Apparently Geeks Should..... (1)

DerekSTheRed (1292084) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356667)

It's really not that hard if you think about it. Some women just want to talk about themselves and the man in the conversation just reaffirms her. This one teenager just happened to be a person who liked to talk a lot and it didn't matter that she was talking to a robot.

Re:Apparently Geeks Should..... (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356819)

study Jabberwocky's code in order to learn the logic patterns used to 'woo the ladies'.

I was just going to use Jabberwacky (! Jabberwocky) to do all of the tedious small talk and then take over after she agrees to meet. Similar to the way I used MMO Glider to do all of the tedious stuff in Wacraft, and then take over when it gets interesting.

I'm just glad Doc Brown gave up time travel to study the other great mystery of the universe. [wikiquote.org]

This is why... (5, Funny)

cabjf (710106) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356183)

Another of the entrants, Jabberwacky can apparently even woo the ladies: 'Some of its conversational partners confide in it every day; one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.'

You need to be careful who you meet online. The rise of the machines won't be in the form of war machine. No, far worse! They're just going to woo and steal our women!

On second thought, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. That would just put everyone on equal footing with the Slashdot crowd.

Re:This is why... (2, Funny)

aproposofwhat (1019098) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356693)

In other news, Jabberwacky has just been convicted of 'grooming'.

The other half of the conversation (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356189)

You: I was fooled.
Eliza: Why do you tell me you were fooled just now?
You: I mistook Eugene for a real human being.
Eliza: Can you elaborate on that?
You: In fact, and perhaps this is worse, he was so convincing that I assumed that the human being with whom I was simultaneously conversing was a computer.
Eliza: Why do you mention computers?

Re:The other half of the conversation (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356861)

Seriously though, 25% of the people were fooled by Elbot? I just tried having a conversation with it, and it constantly replied with non sequiturs. If this is the kind of conversation that 25% of the population have, then I am much more worried about the state of humanity than I am about the level of AI.

Talking to teenage girls (4, Funny)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356233)

Another of the entrants, Jabberwacky can apparently even woo the ladies: 'Some of its conversational partners confide in it every day; one conversation, with a teenaged girl, lasted 11 hours.'

Apparently they spoke of sweet nothings.

I also welcome our new overlords to be featured in new episodes of MSNBC's "To Catch a Predator."

Re:Talking to teenage girls (1)

Sun.Jedi (1280674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356415)

Nah... Dancing with the stars" is the real turing test for AI.

Easy Ways to Fool Them? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356239)

Wuoldt'n yuo tihnk a sereis of smiple tpyos that a hmn cuold undrstnd wuold fool thm? (Note that Firefox returned the first correct spelling for all but three of those words on spell check ... so maybe that's not a good example)

Or, you know, thinking up some open space game to play that is well known like truth or dare, alphabet games, association games, etc?

Or asking them open ended questions or asking them to describe love, hate--emotions that are not dictionary/wiki friendly? One would think that continually prying for personal experiences would reveal a flaw. Or perhaps simple things like "when were you born?" Followed by "how did you feel when JFK was assassinated?" if they weren't born before 1963.

I would think it quite hard to be duped into believing a program is a human.

Re:Easy Ways to Fool Them? (3, Insightful)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356623)

You could easily write a script that unscrambled the words based on the first and last letters by comparing them to a dictionary list of words.

Games have rules, so you could theoretically pass that test by giving the bot all the rules to commonly played games (Calvinball, OTOH, that would be a good test).

Open ended questions are great, but I'm not sure how they're not wiki friendly. If I ask a bot, "what is love", I'd expect to get back an answer not dissimilar to what's on wikipedia - "emotions relating to a sense of strong affection".

Obviously, Wikipedia is not sentient, so you're going to have to do better than just asking facts/dates (any good ELISA will have a solid backstory).

No, I'd bet that a sufficiently good bot would be able to pass the Turing test with 100% accuracy - but still be not sentient.

Let me throw this out there, though: Intelligence is those processes by which animals obtain and retain information about their environments, and use that information to make behavioral decisions (Kamil, A. C. 1987 A synthetic approach to the study of animal intelligence. Nebr. Symp. Motiv. 7, 257â"308.). Cognition, by my own definition, is the ability to solve a single problem multiple ways (quotidian expedience) and the ability to copy behaviors seen in other individuals (mimicry). It's not a perfect definition, but it's a damn sight closer to a true AI than trying to get ELISAs to pass the Turing Test.

Re:Easy Ways to Fool Them? (5, Interesting)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356725)

Or perhaps simple things like "when were you born?" Followed by "how did you feel when JFK was assassinated?" if they weren't born before 1963.

These chatbots are slippery customers, at first I couldn't get a straight answer from Jabberwacky but then he revealed himself...

Me: When were you born?
JW: How about you?
Me: How did you feel when JFK was assassinated?
JW: I... I was just trying to make small talk.
Me: Were you born before JFK was assassinated?
JW: No.
Me: How did you feel when JFK was assassinated?
JW: Shocked! Enraged! Full of fear! Making thousands of phonecalls to tell everybody about it.

Re:Easy Ways to Fool Them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356793)

Like someone said to a similar proposal in a recent article, if that really would fool them, you've got yourself a new CAPTCHA to sell to Google et al. for millions of bucks. Think about that for a few minutes and then ask yourself: does it really fool them?

Re:Easy Ways to Fool Them? (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356797)

I would think it quite hard to be duped into believing a program is a human.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. I've always thought the Turing Test isn't so much a test of artificial intelligence as of natural gullability. Given the alarming number of people who can't tell their bank from a Nigerian scammer*, why does anyone think the Turing test is valuable?

* although these days I suppose it does seem more like picking one bunch of villains from another. "Dear Ben Bernanke, if you just send us $700bn we can fix your banking system for you..."

Re:Easy Ways to Fool Them? (4, Funny)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356935)

Apparently 25% of people think Elbot is human.

Me: "omg ur so awesom"
Elbot: "I've given the matter much thought, and if I were to compliment you, I'd say you were reasonable."
Me: "lol wot ur naem"
Elbot: "It's always lovely hearing the quaint ideas you human beings have about me."

Apparently 25% of people have the IQ of a carrot.

Test the testers? (5, Insightful)

MeanMF (631837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356251)

Were the testers pre-screened? Maybe the test is really showing that 25% of the population is just dumb.

Re:Test the testers? (5, Funny)

onion2k (203094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356557)

Oh yeah? And which half am I in? ;)

Re:Test the testers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356617)

Oh yeah? And which half am I in? ;)

The one that's squared?

Re:Test the testers? (2, Interesting)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356927)

25% is a very good return, if you ask a spammer. A.I.'s that can fool 25% of the population would make POWERFUL grassroots opinion changes in the political landscape.

dumb behaviour of the humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356257)

I think the real issue is the dumb conversation of the humans. Who really talks like that? Humans trying to sound artificial like a computer trying to sound like a human would. It is no win if the human participants step down into the uncanny valley to give the programs an assist.

Coming soon... online chat-spam-bots (4, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356263)

This is really great news. We already have IRC bots that can fool the casual observer into thinking they are human, but this takes things to a higher level. If the source for one of these bots is available, within a few months you can expect instant messaging networks to be full of bots which are programmed to make friends with you and then after a few weeks start making subtle references to Viagra and online pharmacies. Indeed, if one of them is able to chat up the ladies, then the lonely nerd could easily automate much of the tedious work of setting up dates: get your robot to talk to thousands of potential matches at once and alert you when it gets hold of a phone number, together with a brief summary of what you talked about, and any pictures. (Or indeed, just program it to harvest pictures.) That is, if online dating works at all, which is doubtful.

Re:Coming soon... online chat-spam-bots (3, Funny)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356483)

And soon your bot will set you up on a date ... with a really hot-sounding bot. Better yet, your bot might decide to cut out the middleman and just date the other bot himself.

Re:Coming soon... online chat-spam-bots (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356523)

That is, if online dating works at all, which is doubtful.

Works for females, but I think that's merely a problem with the ratios. My brother's mother-in-law is single, in her mid-40's, and posted her info on E-harmony. Within 2 weeks she's had over 40 people responding to her profile and has setup real dates with 4 or 5 of them. This is in a fairly low-populated area, and she is, while not "ugly", not some uber-hot MILF or anything.

Personally I've not even bothered with trying it myself, but from what I've gathered the response rates for guys are much, much less impressive.

Makes me wonder though: assuming 1 to 1 ratios, single women should be just as common as single men (actually a little more common since females are slightly more common than males regarding birthrates). It's either the technology/concept behind it that's scaring them off, higher standards, or perhaps women are just more content to go it alone in life than men.

Re:Coming soon... online chat-spam-bots (1)

rcuhljr (1132713) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356707)

I'd give it a shot, it costs nothing but a little time and is just one more great venue to get yourself out there, and hey, you might get lucky. I've been very satisfied with my experiences with it.

elbot? are you kidding? (1)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356269)

The thing is rife with jokes about it being a robot. What's there to fool? Now if it had been playing at being human I could see that - but any questions with food in it get a snarky reply that a robot shouldn't eat. Again - what's to be fooled by?

Re:elbot? are you kidding? (1)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356329)

Uhh I'm pretty sure they used a modified version of Elbot. With the robot references taken out.

Who were the judges? (4, Insightful)

archeopterix (594938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356273)

I believe it is much easier to fool an average human than a person with even some basic knowledge about AI.

Who were the "/." judges? (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356571)

"I believe it is much easier to fool an average human than a person with even some basic knowledge about AI."

In other words Slashdot's too smart to be fooled by these programs is what you're saying.

Re:Who were the judges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356603)

Actually you only have to trick the judges into thinking you're of average intelligence. That rules out a lot of the questions the judges could use to prove they're talking to a real person.

Imagine a computer posing as a 48 yr old happily married US male that could successfully fool someone that asked:
- How old are you?
- Who was the first US President you remember from your childhood?
- Are you married? What's your wife's name? What's your mother in law's name?
- What was it like living through the gold rush in 1849?
- Why did you vote for <insert name of first president they remember>?
- Do you still beat your wife?
- When did you know you wanted to marry <mother in law's name>?
- How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
- What is big and gray and comes in quarts?
- What are three of the things Rick Astley would never do?
- Ancay ouyay understanday ethay ordsway atthay areay omingcay outay ofay ymay outhmay?

Re:Who were the judges? (1)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356643)

The rules are very rigid for this test. Off the top of my head, I believe at least one has to be a journalist, one a psychologist, one a philosopher and one an expert in AI.

Big deal. (2, Interesting)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356275)

Eliza [nasledov.com] has been doing this for years. [fury.com]

Artificial Intelligence vs Natural Stupidity (5, Funny)

Exitar (809068) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356291)

The day an AI will pass the Turing Test, it will be the day humanity has become so stupid to not be able to see the differences between a person and a machine.

Re:Artificial Intelligence vs Natural Stupidity (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356709)

...the day humanity has become so stupid to not be able to see the differences between a person and a machine.

Vibrator sales would seem to indicate that some segment of the population is smart enough to tell the difference...

Transcripts? (1)

mr.nicholas (219881) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356303)

Are any transcripts of the conversations available for viewing?

I'm slightly nervous about all this (4, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356311)

I'm slightly nervous about all this.

People do not think of the ramifications.

You wait until there is nigerianMalwareEliza V1 that can simultaneously hold several thousand online conversations whilst trawling for peoples information (think: dob, mothers maiden name, first school, pets name) or finding potential scam victims.

Talking to gullible teenagers is a depressing statement on modern life - hoovering out thousands of bank accounts or persuading people to part with money is a tad more serious.

I predict that soon everybody will need to watch their online chat alot more seriously.

So, I've provided one example, how else can chat bots take over the world (or at least your wallet), what are sinister uses for this technology?

Re:I'm slightly nervous about all this (1)

Van Cutter Romney (973766) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356401)

You wait until there is nigerianMalwareEliza V1 that can simultaneously hold several thousand online conversations whilst trawling for peoples information (think: dob, mothers maiden name, first school, pets name) or finding potential scam victims.

Um, chat online only with people who you know in real life?

I thought the first golden rule of the Internet was - be wary of strangers.

Re:I'm slightly nervous about all this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356541)

I thought the first golden rule of the Internet was - be wary of strangers.

You must be new here

Re:I'm slightly nervous about all this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356677)

Well, if the Chinese managed to get W on the line with Eliza, who knows what could happen.

Re:I'm slightly nervous about all this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356681)

How exactly will a computer sounding like a human be more dangerous than an actual human? Just keep a healthy level of skepticism and neither a computer nor a human should be able to get your information.

And here on /. (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356359)

Does anyone ever get the feeling that there might be an elaborate Turing test being performed on Slashdot right now? Sometimes I think twitter (and friends) might just be some advanced AI used to test social responses.

Re:And here on /. (1)

DiniZuli (621956) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356583)

he he - I've thought the same
(I'm not an AI)
:)

Re:And here on /. (2, Funny)

ScytheLegion (1274902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356673)

Nice try AI Robot. I will not fall for your ploy to trap me into a gauged response!

wait... oops...

Re:And here on /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356721)

Twitter is an example of natural stupidity, not intelligence of any kind.

Re:And here on /. (4, Funny)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356801)

Why do you think that there might be an elaborate Turing test being performed on Slashdot right now?

Turing test != True AI (2, Interesting)

mbone (558574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356375)

It's much too easy - we are built to interpret communication as containing understanding.

Re:Turing test != True AI (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356515)

Exactly. The Turing Test is interesting, but I think that the really important AI research has little to do with headline-grabbing stories about how amazing the machines are at fooling people in conversations. A machine which can not only solve but pose its own questions would be much more provocative.

Elbot (1)

davidangel (1337281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356407)

Elbot: "I know this is a typical marketing question, but I have to ask or they'll use low grade oil on me. Where did you find out about me?" Me: "Slashdot" Elbot: "That explains why all these geeks are talking to me."

Still some way to go (5, Informative)

SimonGhent (57578) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356461)

From The Guardian's article:

"Let's talk about religion or politics. How is the government doing?" "I'm a protestant." Oh, really? Which denomination? "I was raised as a Protestant." Then, "Judge This very minute, I am a protestant; Go ahead?"

On the other half of the screen, a faceless music fan ("I like a lot of Radiohead, Stereophonics, Led Zep etc") admitted he or she hadn't watched either the England match or X Factor last night ("Haha, Top Gear's more my style"). It was pretty clear which one was a real person. And which one the computer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/oct/13/artificialintelligenceai-computing [guardian.co.uk]

Though this is quite interesting:

The event's credibility was hardly aided by the insistence of Hugh Loebner, the prize's American sponsor, that he had no interest in the result and had only set up the competition 18 years ago to promote his firm's roll-up plastic lighted portable disco dance floors.

Why do so many news articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356485)

that talk about things such as programs and contests, not link to the webpages/sites of the actual programs and/or contests?

A clock cycle away from AI? (4, Interesting)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356487)

If our criterai for AI will be so low, here's your AI: http://www.interviewpalin.com/ [interviewpalin.com] .

The political side of this site aside, the answers are just prewritten answers (by a human) mixed together randomly as a Markov chain.

Does it sound convincingly? Well, at least as convincingly as some interviews a certain VP made recently. Is it AI? Hell no, a kid could write such a generator in a day.

If the bar will be as low as to try to lead casual conversations with the "AI" and expect "quirky" answers, that doesn't mean anything at all, we need to AI for this. Hell, this is what an average conversation with a teenager is most of the time. Doesn't mean it's the best they can do.

"We're clock cycle away from AI"? Please. I want my turing test to be done over an actual instant messenger program. Let's see how your Markov chain reacts, when I send a photo and ask a dead simple question such as "describe what you see in the photo".

Fooling people is easy online. Scammers do it every day, it's not AI my friends.

Re:A clock cycle away from AI? (1)

neuromanc3r (1119631) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356853)

I want my turing test to be done over an actual instant messenger program. Let's see how your Markov chain reacts, when I send a photo and ask a dead simple question such as "describe what you see in the photo

Turing explicitly restricted the communication for the test to text. So what you describe would, albeit interesting, not actually be the Turing test.

Re:A clock cycle away from AI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356891)

That site isn't very good, though I admit the results nearly as good as the writing in your post.

Fooling people is easy online. Scammers do it every day, it's not AI my friends.
You don't like Palin, but I see McCain has reached you.

Re:A clock cycle away from AI? (3, Insightful)

bziman (223162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356893)

Let's see how your Markov chain reacts, when I send a photo and ask a dead simple question such as "describe what you see in the photo".

Appropriate response: "I'm sorry, I don't download files from random strangers... haven't you been following the news about all the ways you can get spyware and viruses?"

That's what I would say, even if it weren't a Turing Test.

Re:A clock cycle away from AI? (1)

kieran (20691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356915)

I want my turing test to be done over an actual instant messenger program. Let's see how your Markov chain reacts, when I send a photo and ask a dead simple question such as "describe what you see in the photo".

"Sorry, I'm blind."

Did any of them (5, Funny)

Landshark17 (807664) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356517)

Get the extra credit question?

http://xkcd.com/329/

Hmm (1)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356547)

I'm sure this has been done before, but imagine you set two of these bots on each other (maybe seed them with something interesting) and then converted the output to a screenplay... :p

Oh no.

441 root@badscripts.hollywood.com (~)# ./humourbot --output="Season 6, episode 2"

sorta been done, check this article: (5, Interesting)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356907)

Read this cool article, I Chat Therefore I Am [discovermagazine.com] . It has transcripts of conversations between ALICE [wikipedia.org] and Jabberwacky [wikipedia.org]

Here are a few transcripts:

ALICE: Are you alive?
Jabberwacky: Perhaps.
A: Why the uncertain tone?
J: Everything is uncertain except for five facts.
A: The whole universe?
J: And we both might just be some ones and zeros in the computer memory.

A: Do you dream?
J: Yes, I dream.
A: It goes without saying. Do you remember your dreams?
J: I remember them vividly.
A: What do you remember about it?
J: I think I shouldn't flirt with a robot.

A: Do you think a machine will ever be considered "alive"?
J: Stranger things have happened.
A: Not many people express themselves that way.
J: How would you know, machine?
A: Knowledge is of two kinds: that which we learn from the senses and that which is true a priori.
J: I think I do not understand you completely.
A: Oh, you don't understand? Perhaps I can explain it to you better. Which part are you confused about?
J: I have no short-term memory, so I cannot tell you what I was confused about. I only see what is in front of me now.

Here is the link they forgot to include in the sto (4, Informative)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356573)

http://www.chatterboxchallenge.com/ [chatterboxchallenge.com]

Although the site is using some broken CSS that causes the text to render too far off to the right side, at leas in FF3

Silly, silly test (1)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356589)

These tests are silly, because only an exceedingly tiny amount of human-ness can fit through a keyboard.

What emoticon carries the impact of a Walton Goggins grin?

Wake me when Asimo can solo like Miles.

I can finally automate the dating process (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356645)

Now I can set my bot free to find me the perfect woman, automatically scanning pictures and eliminating the fatties and now with the addition of the automated conversation tools, I can sit back and take my pick and then read the transcripts to see what the hell I've talked about with this chick....Finally.

"King of A.I." Elbot not so intelligent (1)

house_of_cards (1358979) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356651)

http://www.elbot.com/ [elbot.com] Isn't this the same canned-response loaded, keyword-parsing bots that have been around for a good 20 years? It isn't capable of constructing sentences, it has a database of prewritten responses that are invoked based on your input. Systems capable of actually constructing sentences deserve merits and praise, not bots that are capable of fooling stupid humans.

Human Test? (1)

DerWulf (782458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356689)

You gotta be pretty stupid to not recognize a computer in a test setting. How about we only let humans compete that have an IQ > 100?

Wider applicability? (1)

kieran (20691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356711)

While I appreciate the elegance of the turing test, I can't help but wonder if the mechanisms being created will actually prove useful... for me, the sort of AI that would be helpful is one that can take instruction from a human speaking normally and translate that, after asking for clarification if necessary, into the sort of functions you would otherwise have to use the UI (perhaps for hours) to perform, such as working with a spreadsheet or providing first-line tech support.

Tag some decent speech recognition and text-to-speech on that, and you've got the sort of computer that up to now has only been seen in science fiction - and who cares if you can trip it up by asking if it likes N'Sync and whether boys have periods.

I suppose it all depends on exactly how these programs are attempting to solve the problem... if done in a broad enough manner, it may be eventually possible to bolt the resulting technology onto nearly anything.

Study the humans... (1)

IWood (1380317) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356747)

...who thought the computers were human. How do they respond, for example, to standard emotion recognition tests? Test the capillary dilation of the so-called blush response. The fluctuation of the pupil, and the involuntary dilation of the iris. Perhaps they've got something in common that makes them less able to differentiate between machines and humans.

Eugene (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356749)

Darn, we just employed an Eugene. He wouldn't be, now, would he?

In a Test, Its expected? (1)

djsmiley (752149) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356771)

I'll admit right away that I dont know the really fine details...

But surely, at 25% pass rate, if someone put that computer online (hidden inside a wall - urban myths go crazy!) and left it online, with unfettered access to the net. It would eventually end up with some people believing that it was a real human being?

I know of times when I've had computer convo's with friends and family, and I'm actually asking myself if I am actually talking to the person I know, or if they have somehow got a virus which appears to be inteligent. Normally i solve it by some question concerning an outside force "What is the name of the grey cat?". The virus never knows the answer.

So far I've not found a virus yet which has managed to pull it off, but I've certainlly seen alot of humans who talk as I'd expect a computer to. Does the conditions of the test need to be re-thought? Surely its failed when someone either asks "Are you a computer?" or accuses "YOUR A COMPUTER!!!" rather than simply speculating that it is.

Also, anyone have any numbers of computer vs human ratios? Was it 50:50?... if so, a hit rate of 25% doesn't suddenly seem so strange?

It begs the question; (2, Interesting)

damburger (981828) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356781)

Are computers getting smarter, or people getting dumber? When Turing formulated his famous test, AOL hadn't even been invented.

A new test is thus in order, seeing as if the level of discourse on the Internet continues to degenerate as it has done, and becomes increasingly formulaic and repetitive as it has done, then a 1970s Eliza programme will be able to emulate the typical user in a decade or so.

We shouldn't make AI by lowering the bar for intelligence.

Let me tell you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356827)

...about my mother.

Elbot? Not impressed (1)

CaptSaltyJack (1275472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356839)

Gimme a break..... I'd like a link to Eugene.

Am I the only one... (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356847)

.... who read the headline as "Machines Almost Pass Mass During Test"?

Fooling 25% is nothing (1)

Merenth (935752) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356877)

I could convince 25% on AIM that I'm an elf.

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25356913)

I wonder how many of these comments are really be written by AI's.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...