Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As someone who has been fooled more than once on Tinder by cam-show bots parading as women, I feel like this shouldn't be a surprise.

On the other hand, it's possible that women on Tinder are just really robotic and suck at carrying conversations.

 sebster wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Being able to interact with humans in a sensible way is an extremely difficult, yet very useful thing to achieve.

The problem is that chatbot scripts do nothing of the sort.

The classic example of language is in the statement 'I was walking down the street when I saw a doggie in the window and so I bought it." By the literal rules of language the 'it' that was purchased would be the window, we only understand it to be the doggie because we know what dogs are, what windows are and what stores and so therefore understand what we tend to go in to stores to by.

Getting a machine to understand human language requires a machine that understands human life, which is a hell of a long way off. But long before we get there there's tremendous scope for AIs that are better than humans in all kinds of specific tasks.

I'm not disagreeing with you

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you

I didn't think we were. Sorry if my response wasn't clear

 sebster wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you

I didn't think we were. Sorry if my response wasn't clear

Nope, it was clear - I was just signalling my agreement with your comments

 poda_t wrote:


you've not written a lot of code to date, have you?

The concept of what Turning intended the Turning test to be has nothing to do with code. It takes about five minutes of reading his papers on the subject to realize his intentions have nothing to do with our use, and that our use of the test is in itself something of a farce. 1/3 of people probably don't even bother having intelligent conversations longer than fifteen minutes with strangers anyway. Beating the test in itself isn't much of a challenge for an enterprising programmer with the talent and initiative.

And yes. I have coded (just not recently). Getting a machine to beat the test was inevitable either by product of finally making one capable of tricking a person, or getting a group of people too stupid to tell the difference. A single pass of the test means very little for AI.

First clue that this is false is that Captain Cyborg, aka Kevin Warwick is involved.

The Register article on this