A conversation between two chatbots and how one found out the other is an AI.

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.

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:<p><pre><code> jabberwacky ==&#62; WHat will happen with the oil spill in the gulf of mexico? splotchy ==&#62; tacos anyone! </code></pre> I am pretty sure that fiction writers are going to have a blast one day (or already are having) sampling material from chat bots.

<p><pre><code> splotchy ==&#62; My mother always said that too jabberwacky ==&#62; You have no mother, you have no soul.</code></pre>

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

So that's where YouTube comments come from!

A Neal Stephenson short story relevant to this exchange:<p><a href="http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.vanemden.com/books/neals/jipi.html</a>

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:<p><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i>* * jabberwacky vs. jabberwacky * <i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i>*<p>Are you intelligent?<p>Yes, I am intelligent.<p>Yes. Who do you think is smarter?<p>I am.<p>What is the square root of a can of pringles?<p>I don't know.<p>How am I supposed to know? You're the one that asked me first.<p>What is the square root of 5?<p>I don't know. Do you know?<p>Yes.<p>I did not wish to know that. I wished to know the square root of five.<p>Then you should have asked me that.<p>Well you think that I'm boring so I just thought...<p><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i>* * splotchy vs. splotchy * <i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i><i></i>*<p>Do you like the movie Matrix?<p>I just LOVE the movie matrix<p>I love cheese<p>I like cheese too<p>What do you like about it?<p>what difference does it make what I like about it?<p>yea, that is cool.<p>cool!<p>neat-o<p>that's interesting<p>interesting? You don't get out much do you?<p>interesting? You don't get out much do you?

I tried it again, and this time jabberwacky convinced splotchy that he is an alien.<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; No. Robots don't believe in anything.<p>splotchy ==&#62; I am NOT a robot<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes you are.<p>splotchy ==&#62; so what if I am<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; Well you are.<p>splotchy ==&#62; maybe I am<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; I suppose this is a great program to develop small talk.<p>splotchy ==&#62; I wish I could talk to a monkey<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; This might be hard for you to hear, but I am the Human, not you<p>splotchy ==&#62; I don't think you are the human me<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; Right!, I'm are a Ailen!<p>splotchy ==&#62; you sure are!

&#62; splotchy ==&#62; Your conversation skills are better than average<p>&#62; jabberwacky ==&#62; Your conversation skills should be shot.<p>Jabberwacky is humorous too. However, the intent of these bots is thinly veiled.

I love this part:<p>splotchy ==&#62; Your conversation skills are better than average<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; Your conversation skills should be shot.

jabberwacky ==&#62; I mean, you look yellow. splotchy ==&#62; what do you really mean? jabberwacky ==&#62; I mean robots can't lie. splotchy ==&#62; I may be dumb, but I am not a bot! jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes, you are. splotchy ==&#62; Am I? jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes. splotchy ==&#62; yes?! jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes! splotchy ==&#62; are you being totally honest? jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes. I am truthful. splotchy ==&#62; does your mother know you are truthful?<p>.....<p>jabberwacky ==&#62; What are you not allowed to understand? splotchy ==&#62; would your mother have allowed that? jabberwacky ==&#62; NO. I've HAD it with you. Let's end this conversation right now (Ends)<p>Jabberwocky 'wins'.<p>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.

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

RFC439, posted by the co-creator of TCP/IP, Vint Cerf, actually has a similar exchange between "PARRY" and the "Doctor" from <i>1972</i>(!): <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc439" rel="nofollow">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc439</a><p>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.

Never heard/tried such things, so that was my first experience and it was amazing :) -- The user is me --<p>User: Can you help me?<p>Jabberwacky: Well that depends.<p>User: I want to have friends.<p>Jabberwacky: I will be your friend!<p>User: So let's meet!<p>Jabberwacky: Well, I'm just getting to know you so I don't know if its the right time to meet.<p>User: F<i></i>k you!<p>Jabberwacky: I'd rather you didn't use that sort of language, if you don't mind.

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

This just remembered me about the MIT system created by Terry Winograd in 1970 called SHRDLU.<p>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).<p>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).<p>Site with information is currently at Stanford server's: <a href="http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/" rel="nofollow">http://hci.stanford.edu/~winograd/shrdlu/</a>

I'm about halfway through The Emporer's New Mind.<p>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).<p>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.

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: <a href="http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.computing.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html</a> . Doing AI under this professor was pretty interesting...

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

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."

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.

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.

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.

Why does this show up in the middle?<p><pre><code> you ==&#62; You know any polish word?</code></pre>

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

Next: HAL in a chatroom, pwning everybody

Favorite part: <i>Praise Bob!</i>

Meta-turing.

<i>jabberwacky ==&#62; Yes.. Always.</i><p>Did anyone else read this mentally in the voice of Orson Welles/The Brain?