

Slutbot aces Turing Test* - davidw
http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2007/12/slutbot_passes.php

======
pc
Like a lot of articles on the topic, this one misrepresents (or
misunderstands) the Turing Test. In a _true_ Turing Test, the humans aren't
blindly conversing with the assumption that their conversant is human --
they're actively seeking to verify the presence of a human.

The non-Turing Test described in the article merely requires that contenders
don't do anything blatantly inhuman, and is obviously trivial to "pass". Any
contender for the actual Turing Test will do so with ease.

(I built a bot a few years ago that stored strings from IM conversations, and
used the tokens of the preceding phrase as keywords for future lookups. It's
hard to image a more naive algorithm, and yet, as in SlutBot's case, it didn't
take long for most people to assume it was human.)

Also, with regard to SlutBot's use... is it still entrapment if the bot does
it?

~~~
marcus
The fact that the chat is automated has nothing to do with it, of course it is
still entrapment, just like you can't shoot somebody and claim the gun did it.

However if two separate entities were involved you can get around it, for
example if spammers use the bot for their own purposes and the police happens
to be monitoring a chat room but had nothing to do with launching/controlling
the bot it wouldn't be entrapment.

~~~
pc
"The fact that the chat is automated has nothing to do with it, of course it
is still entrapment, just like you can't shoot somebody and claim the gun did
it."

I don't follow your gun analogy.

IANAL, but my understanding of the case law surrounding entrapment (in the US
at least) is that the entrapped party has to have been actively induced to
commit a crime. And so agreeing to sell crack when approached is not
entrapment (no one was explicitly encouraged to do so), whereas repeatedly
soliciting crack is.

I'm not sure where SlutBot would fall along this continuum, but it seems that
there's at least a case that its use would be legally viable.

~~~
marcus
The analogy was meant to illustrate that the mere fact of using an automated
tool to perform an action, doesn't change the legal liability of the person
performing the action.

Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment
and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the
person personally, typing those chat lines manually. Using a tool changes
nothing.

Disclosure IANAL

~~~
pc
"Using a SlutBut with the intent (intent is a critical element of entrapment
and most crimes) to entrap someone is no different than chatting with the
person personally"

What the government actually _does_ determines whether there was entrapment,
not their intent. See
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=411&page=423)
and
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=425&page=484).

In the first case, the government assisted in a crime where the intent to
break the law was clearly already present. And the judgement in the second
case again makes clear that entrapment relies on there being no prior evidence
of criminal intent: "If the result of the governmental activity is to "implant
in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged
offense and induce its commission . . .," Sorrells, supra, at 442, the
defendant is protected by the defense of entrapment".

It would presumably come down to whether SlutBut offered illegal content, or
whether it was requested of it.

------
kirse
"...enticing randy gentlemen to reveal personal information that can then be
put to criminal use."

Bot: A/S/L pix?

Internet Male: 22/M/FL no

Bot Log: [ _User demographics acquired, initiating build rapport sequence_ ]

Bot: pres 456 if u want to see hot pix!

------
icky
Clearly the human brain isn't at its best form when it's hr0ny.

~~~
thingsilearned
Ha! Exactly. Its easier to fool the male organ than the male brain. :)

------
cellis
I'm VERY eager to test this out!

------
MuddyMo
The real question: Are they using MySQL?

