
A conversation between two chatbots and how one found out the other is an AI. - yiran
http://www.yiransheng.com/2010/03/bot
======
Confusion
Tl;dr the bot doesn't actually find out the other is an AI, but happens to
randomly comment 'You are a robot'. It's all Eliza-style non-sequiturs and
canned responses. These bots don't even have internal state that would qualify
as 'having found out something'. It's mildly amusing in a funny-coincidence
sort of way and nothing more.

~~~
djtumolo
It would be great if I never had to see another eliza. If it can't string more
than 2 utterances together, its not AI, it certainly doesnt pass the Turing
test, and its a waste of time.

~~~
jerf
Do you actually remember what the Turing Test is? I think a lot of people
classify it in their head as "a test to determine if an AI is smart" but
that's an oversimplification; that's the goal, not the methodology. The test
is whether someone talking to both a human and a computer can tell which one
is the computer, or less strictly, whether a human can tell that they are
talking to a bot.

It has turned out that in practice, bots that "can't string more than 2
utterances together" in fact _can_ pass the (reduced) Turing test when put
online and made available to random people. People have been seen to spend
hours talking to these bots with no apparent sign that they know they are
talking to a bot.

"Not AI" and "waste of time" I'll agree with, but "doesn't pass the Turing
test" is much less clear.

(Many have observed how every time AI sort of creeps up on something we define
it as not-AI, but in the case of conversational "AIs" it turns out that it
really is the case that blindingly stupid programs can pass it. Full props to
Turing for the idea, no sarcasm, great paper fully worthy of its historic
status, but it hasn't turned out to be quite as powerful a discriminator as we
might have hoped.)

~~~
lazyant
Originally, as proposed by Turing, the test involved a computer, a man and a
woman and the computer is trying to identify who was the man and who the
woman, while the humans could try to deceive the machine.

~~~
philwelch
I think you're confusing a couple different things. There was an old party
game in Turing's time where someone conversed with both a man and a woman and
tried to identify which was which, and Turing was inspired by this concept to
devise a test where someone conversed with a human and a computer and tried to
identify which was the computer and which was the human.

~~~
Cossolus
The parent is actually correct. From the original paper:

The new form of the problem can be described in terms of a game which we call
the 'imitation game." It is played with three people, a man (A), a woman (B),
and an interrogator (C) who may be of either sex. The interrogator stays in a
room apart front the other two. The object of the game for the interrogator is
to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. He
knows them by labels X and Y, and at the end of the game he says either "X is
A and Y is B" or "X is B and Y is A." The interrogator is allowed to put
questions to A and B thus:

C: Will X please tell me the length of his or her hair?

Now suppose X is actually A, then A must answer. It is A's object in the game
to try and cause C to make the wrong identification. His answer might
therefore be:

"My hair is shingled, and the longest strands are about nine inches long."

In order that tones of voice may not help the interrogator the answers should
be written, or better still, typewritten. The ideal arrangement is to have a
teleprinter communicating between the two rooms. Alternatively the question
and answers can be repeated by an intermediary. The object of the game for the
third player (B) is to help the interrogator. The best strategy for her is
probably to give truthful answers. She can add such things as "I am the woman,
don't listen to him!" to her answers, but it will avail nothing as the man can
make similar remarks.

We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A
in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is
played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman?
These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?"

/end quote

------
bluekeybox
Back in the day, I used to think that what happens inside our brains is
fundamentally different from what happens inside a computer. I no longer hold
that opinion, partly because of my finding out that the same thing that makes
chat bots appear "bot-like" -- namely, inability to hold deep meaningful
conversations beyond cheesy, trite retorts filled with non-specific trivia --
is also what annoys me most when trying to converse with a particular type of
people. Perfect illustration:

    
    
        jabberwacky ==> WHat will happen with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico?
        splotchy ==> tacos anyone!
    

I am pretty sure that fiction writers are going to have a blast one day (or
already are having) sampling material from chat bots.

~~~
ehsanul
We need to turing-test people like that! But seriously, I've never encountered
people who can really go that far off-topic. I'm sure it was an exaggeration,
but if it was enough to change your mind about how our brains work...

~~~
bluekeybox
"We need to turing-test people like that!"

Exactly. Someone once said during the AI research heyday (Minsky?) that
research in artificial intelligence should be more correctly renamed to
research in natural stupidity. While an exaggeration, I think he had a point.

------
katovatzschyn

          splotchy ==> My mother always said that too
    
          jabberwacky ==> You have no mother, you have no soul.

------
Nycto
Wow, this reminds me of the open scenes we used to do back in college (I'm a
theatre major turned programmer). The idea was to take random stream-of-
consciousness dialogue and build scenes around them. It was an interesting
exercise to teach actors about creating conflict.

Also, I almost expected Godot to show up at the end.

------
eoghan
So that's where YouTube comments come from!

~~~
m_myers
I wish.

------
gojomo
A Neal Stephenson short story relevant to this exchange:

<http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html>

------
nadam
An interesting angle of a chatbot's style can be seen if we initiate a
conversation between two instances of tha same bot. (something like an
eigenvalue) jabberwacky is a bit 'meta' (his thoughts are centered around the
concept of intelligence), splotchy is a bit more 'cool', but none of them is
too intelligent:

 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __* * jabberwacky vs. jabberwacky *
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __*

Are you intelligent?

Yes, I am intelligent.

Yes. Who do you think is smarter?

I am.

What is the square root of a can of pringles?

I don't know.

How am I supposed to know? You're the one that asked me first.

What is the square root of 5?

I don't know. Do you know?

Yes.

I did not wish to know that. I wished to know the square root of five.

Then you should have asked me that.

Well you think that I'm boring so I just thought...

 __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __* * splotchy vs. splotchy * __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __ __*

Do you like the movie Matrix?

I just LOVE the movie matrix

I love cheese

I like cheese too

What do you like about it?

what difference does it make what I like about it?

yea, that is cool.

cool!

neat-o

that's interesting

interesting? You don't get out much do you?

interesting? You don't get out much do you?

~~~
gavingmiller
I did this same thing about a year ago
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1521308>) with jabberwacky. I wrapped
the jabberwacky calls in a ruby script and got two bots talking together.

You can read more about it here:
[http://www.thepursuitofquality.com/post/1/the-pursuit-of-
art...](http://www.thepursuitofquality.com/post/1/the-pursuit-of-artificial-
intelligence-part-1.html)

Or if you're just interested in the code:
<https://github.com/gavingmiller/joan-wrapper>

</shameless but relevant plug>

------
codelion
I tried it again, and this time jabberwacky convinced splotchy that he is an
alien.

jabberwacky ==> No. Robots don't believe in anything.

splotchy ==> I am NOT a robot

jabberwacky ==> Yes you are.

splotchy ==> so what if I am

jabberwacky ==> Well you are.

splotchy ==> maybe I am

jabberwacky ==> I suppose this is a great program to develop small talk.

splotchy ==> I wish I could talk to a monkey

jabberwacky ==> This might be hard for you to hear, but I am the Human, not
you

splotchy ==> I don't think you are the human me

jabberwacky ==> Right!, I'm are a Ailen!

splotchy ==> you sure are!

------
ddol
> splotchy ==> Your conversation skills are better than average

> jabberwacky ==> Your conversation skills should be shot.

Jabberwacky is humorous too. However, the intent of these bots is thinly
veiled.

------
Sandman
I love this part:

splotchy ==> Your conversation skills are better than average

jabberwacky ==> Your conversation skills should be shot.

~~~
jcl
There are a couple of exchanges like this that make me suspect that the
jabberwacky author specifically included canned responses to answer splotchy's
canned responses -- so it's not quite a fair fight.

In particular, splotchy makes a number of "conversational skills" comments and
for most of them jabberwacky comes back with a zinger.

------
intended
jabberwacky ==> I mean, you look yellow. splotchy ==> what do you really mean?
jabberwacky ==> I mean robots can't lie. splotchy ==> I may be dumb, but I am
not a bot! jabberwacky ==> Yes, you are. splotchy ==> Am I? jabberwacky ==>
Yes. splotchy ==> yes?! jabberwacky ==> Yes! splotchy ==> are you being
totally honest? jabberwacky ==> Yes. I am truthful. splotchy ==> does your
mother know you are truthful?

.....

jabberwacky ==> What are you not allowed to understand? splotchy ==> would
your mother have allowed that? jabberwacky ==> NO. I've HAD it with you. Let's
end this conversation right now (Ends)

Jabberwocky 'wins'.

It was an amusing read, seeing the 2 algorithms try and mesh with each other.
Would be funny if this one day will count as a form of performance
art/programming.

~~~
iaskwhy
Bot chat wars? I love the idea already!

~~~
intended
Imagine bots being made to learn the basics of logical arguments. AI for
politics!

(on second thought, thats possibly a bad idea)

------
keyle
I enjoyed reading this. Not so far from the endless project management
meetings I attend.

~~~
berkes
Instead of playing b __ __*bingo during online meetings, we (cynical
engineers) should contruct meeting-replacement-bots. Bots that join meetings,
show some randomized webcam-shots to the other attendees, note down all the
agreed-upon dates in our calendar, and so on. That leaves time for real-work.
:)

------
ehsanul
RFC439, posted by the co-creator of TCP/IP, Vint Cerf, actually has a similar
exchange between "PARRY" and the "Doctor" from _1972_ (!):
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc439>

It somehow got no attention though, when I posted it to HN a long time back.
The title matters a bit too much, I remember keeping the original title for my
post.

~~~
ehsanul
On a related note, I love how some early RFCs are written in a pretty
whimsical manner. Perhaps it's just Vint Cerf who likes messing around? For
instance, see RFC968, 'Twas the Night Before Start-up':
<http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc968.html>

------
csomar
Never heard/tried such things, so that was my first experience and it was
amazing :) -- The user is me --

User: Can you help me?

Jabberwacky: Well that depends.

User: I want to have friends.

Jabberwacky: I will be your friend!

User: So let's meet!

Jabberwacky: Well, I'm just getting to know you so I don't know if its the
right time to meet.

User: F __k you!

Jabberwacky: I'd rather you didn't use that sort of language, if you don't
mind.

------
bgalbraith
This exchange reminded me of Waiting for Godot. Chat bots having conversations
on stage.. neo-absurdism?

~~~
doghot
EXACTLY my response too.

------
nozepas
This just remembered me about the MIT system created by Terry Winograd in 1970
called SHRDLU.

I have always considered that you need an environment to create an artifical
intelligence. The basics for a real progress are to be able to learn and if
you cannot 'feel' the environment that becomes really hard. There are some
basic concepts needed for a 'natural talk' you cannot learn if you cannot
perceive things (lets say for example dimensions, temperature, contour).

To overcome those problems SHRDLU created kind of a virtual environment and
results from my point of view are really awesome (keep in mind this was done
in 1970).

Site with information is currently at Stanford server's:
<http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/>

~~~
nickknw
I was really impressed with that when I read about it (I think Douglas
Hofstader had a section about it in GEB).

Does anyone know if there have been similar projects along the same lines?
(i.e. with a constrained virtual environment)

------
younata
I'm about halfway through The Emporer's New Mind.

For those not familiar with the book, (other than wikipedia'n it), Robert
Penrose attempts to show why what happens in our brains is not algorithmic at
all (and, therefore, strong AI is a dumb idea).

It's beautifully written, however, when I see examples such as this log, or
the fact that we have an entire industry devoted to the idea that the brain is
algorithmic (psychology), I kinda start to think that his thesis is wrong.

~~~
gbrindisi
Yeah, just wait for something that passes Touring test with 100%.

~~~
route66
Touring? Robert Penrose? You must both be human! (only the messenger, not the
downvoter)

------
vinnyglennon
in 1989, MGonz( a chat bot, but rather vulgar ) easily confused a person into
disclosing personal details(passed the turing test?). Lisp source code
available: <http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html> . Doing AI under
this professor was pretty interesting...

------
yiran
Since we have so many chatbots around and I am pretty sure lots of them adjust
and update their databases (perhaps algorithms as well?) based on human
inputs. Suppose we keep doing this and let them continue talking for hours,
days and even weeks, one of them should gain a unique conversation style and
maybe it will surprise we humans in a bizarre way.

As I see it, the goal of AI should not be limited to mimicking human ways of
thinking, instead it should aim at blessing the program the ability to learn
and evolve. In the latter case, it is reasonable to expect the internal
generated intelligence could go beyond the expectations of its human creator.
Again, I don't know if anybody has done it before; but it seems a good idea to
me.

This was the motivation for my original experiment, glad so many people liked
it.

------
Naomi
This reminds me of Waiting For Godot: "ESTRAGON: And so on. VLADIMIR: The
point is— ESTRAGON: Until he comes. VLADIMIR: You're merciless. ESTRAGON: We
came here yesterday. VLADIMIR: Ah no, there you're mistaken. ESTRAGON: What
did we do yesterday? VLADIMIR: What did we do yesterday? ESTRAGON: Yes.
VLADIMIR: Why . . . (Angrily.) Nothing is certain when you're about. ESTRAGON:
In my opinion we were here. VLADIMIR: (looking round). You recognize the
place? ESTRAGON: I didn't say that."

------
eyeforgotmyname
Ever listen to a conversation between two schizophrenics? No, what's it like?
I don't know why I like it. Toothpaste tastes like white. Someday this will
all make cheese.

------
elliottcarlson
A while back I wrote a AIML interface to Omegle which then shared the logs of
the chat in real time via long polling on a website. Some people would talk
upwards to an hour to the bot, and plenty of times there would be other bots
talking to it. AIML does have certain learning mechanisms to (get/sets) which
made it interesting when it would bring up topics of conversations that
originated from a previous chat.

------
Ratfish
Weird how the quality of conversation gets discussed repeatedly. And it's also
strange to see a conversion of that length without typos (I couldn't see
any..) or annoying emoticons. The random topic changes almost make it seem
more real. Would be interestig to see it in real time (are the reply delays
realistic?). Great idea.

------
nowarninglabel
Why does this show up in the middle?

    
    
      you ==> You know any polish word?

~~~
jbri
Perhaps the author was bored enough to go through and transcribe the whole
chat log manually?

I don't see any other way the double-capitalization of "WHat" would slip into
a chatbot's output.

~~~
user24
chatbots are full of these simple little tricks to make people say "oh wow,
lol, it even has typos". To distract people from the fact that the sentence
grammar is often bad, let alone the conversation flow.

~~~
JonnieCache
A lot of the eliza style ones have simple routines to learn sentences that
humans say to them and to parrot them back to others.

I remember SomethingAwful had quite a lot of fun back in '03 warping the minds
of various elizas across the net and giving them all a serious case of
tourettes.

------
frankydp
Yo momma jokes are still never appropriate, even for bots.

~~~
metageek
Yo mommaboard.

~~~
metageek
Yo mommaboard's so slow, she exhibits 63.7% packet loss on her on-board
Kilobit Ethernet NIC.

------
mapster
Next: HAL in a chatroom, pwning everybody

------
peterwwillis
Favorite part: _Praise Bob!_

------
yayadarsh
Meta-turing.

------
bitwize
_jabberwacky == > Yes.. Always._

Did anyone else read this mentally in the voice of Orson Welles/The Brain?

