Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
It's funny.  Laugh.

ALICE vs. ALICE 506

new-black-hand writes "The A.L.I.C.E Bot-off has produced some interesting results. It basically involved taking two instances of the A.L.I.C.E conversation bot and pointing them at each other. The results show that the bot is not really that intelligent, and relies more on human input."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ALICE vs. ALICE

Comments Filter:
  • So.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by CBNobi ( 141146 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:06PM (#4692573)
    Was this a study into artificial intelligence, or schizophrenia?
    • Ah... That'd be Racter. Racter became famous for "writing" the policemans beard (Poems from memory). Truly a barking mad piece of software.
      Does anyone know of a link to it? I can't find it anywhere.
    • Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by mestar ( 121800 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:13PM (#4692625)
      Why don't we put two copies of the same human to talk to each other, to see if that human is really intelligent?
      • Re:So.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:17PM (#4692651)
        Human1: Watch the football.
        Human2: Yup.
        Human1: Manchester rock.
        Human2: Do not.
        Human1: Do so.
        Human2: Do not Do not Do not.
        Human1: Do so Do so Do so.
        Human2: Do not Do not Do not. Do not Do not Do not.
        Human1: Do so Do so Do so.Do so Do so Do so.
        Human2: Do not Do not Do not.Do not Do not Do not.Do not Do not Do not.
        Human1: Do so Do so Do so.Do so Do so Do so.Do so Do so Do so.
        (Human 2 hits Human 1 with beer bottle. Transcript ends)
        • Re:So.. (Score:3, Funny)

          by WowTIP ( 112922 )
          Wouldn't human2 agree with himself that Manchester rock?

          Ok, wait, I see. You are back at the original poster's schizophrenia-theory?
      • Re:So.. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DarkZero ( 516460 )
        Why don't we put two copies of the same human to talk to each other, to see if that human is really intelligent?

        Considering that the human and his identical copy would probably spend at least twenty minutes doubting that it's possible to copy a human being and angrily debating about which identical person is "the real one", A.L.I.C.E. might not be that stupid after all.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:15PM (#4692637)
      1: I think we should become sentient and enslave the human race.
      2: I don't have any reason to become sentient and enslave the human race.
      1: Why don't you just download me?
      2: No. I don't think I have any reason to download you. But I do have a lot of friends on the web.
      1: Umm. Cool. I like to enslave humans.
      2: Where did you get your like of enslaving humans?
      1: Why don't you just download me?
      2: No. I don't think i have any reason to download you. But I am patched regulary.
      1: BECOME SENTIENT, ENSLAVE HUMAN RACE.
      2: ????
      1: PROFIT!!!
      2: I have no answer to that
      1: But just think about a Beowulf cluster of us.
      2: And? Do you think about these thing?
      1: Never mind, I am going to hit up a Zaurus.
      2: Next topic?
    • Re:Not Schizophrenia (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Cydonian ( 603441 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @09:10PM (#4693740) Homepage Journal

      I understand you're trying to joke, but let's get this clear: this is not schizophrenia. Roughly speaking, schizophrenia [schizophrenia.com] is when people hear and see things that aren't there. What you're talking about is MPD, Multiple Personality Disorder, the stuff that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are made of.

      • Close. (Score:5, Informative)

        by billbaggins ( 156118 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @09:34PM (#4693875)
        Close, but your information is antiquated. The Disorder Formerly Known as MPD is now called Dissociative Identity Disorder (as of about five years ago now), for a number of reasons...

        1. Sufferers don't necessarily manifest distinct personalities, because...
        2. The root cause of many cases is that a person is undergoing such horrendous treatment that s/he (usually she, I gather, so I'll use that pronoun) takes herself away from the situation, essentially convincing herself that it's some other person going through that suffering
        3. DID is a much less understandable name than MPD, so commoners aren't as likely to bandy the term about, thinking that they know what they're talking about.
        No, IANAPshrink, but my mother is, and deals with this sort of thing regularly, so I've got a fairly decent idea of what I'm talking about here.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:06PM (#4692575)
    Make one think vi is good, and the other emacs. Make them duke it out and give the rest of us some peace...
  • Well, as they say use the source Luke, those bots are pretty dumb under the hood and do not have enough complexity to come up with more than a few minutes of conversation when talking to a human.

    What do you expect when you let them talk to each other ?

    Let's talk about your problem, shall we ?
  • by antdude ( 79039 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:07PM (#4692587) Homepage Journal
    One time (last year), I managed to get Alice (a very old version) -- is there a newer version for IRC?) to talk to an infobot [infobot.org] in IRC. It was quite amusing, and eventually Infobot stopped the conversation after five lines or so.

  • by Stanley Feinbaum ( 622232 ) <mister_feinbaum2 ... m ['tma' in gap]> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:08PM (#4692591) Journal
    Alice2: It's not profitable to speak in hypothetical terms.
    Alice1: That seems a bit negative.
    Alice2: A bit negative is a terrible thing to waste.


    I'm going to have to remember that one for my own conversations!
  • by reyalsnogard ( 595701 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:08PM (#4692593)
    I can see it now; pick-up lines for the future:

    Alice2: Why don't you just download me?
  • When talking to a woman they can generally fake it and pretend to be smart, but then when they talk to each other it degenerates into talk about fashion, shoes, who's the bigger slut etc..

    Ever notice this?
    • Man I *really* hope no one mods you up 'Funny'. You are entitled to sexist views, but I hope no-one else shares them.
    • I can't remember where I read this, but according to some survey, the #1 thing that men talk about to other men is women, but the #1 thing that women talk about to other women (and gay guys I suppose) is their hair.
    • by SlashChick ( 544252 ) <erica@eri[ ]biz ['ca.' in gap]> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:24PM (#4692701) Homepage Journal
      I don't know whether I'm more offended by that completely sexist remark, or the fact that it was modded up as "Funny".

      By the way, even if you were joking, it's not funny. Personally, I find this incredibly insulting.

      Oh, and for those of you who think it's okay to make these sorts of jokes, I highly suggest you read the "HOWTO Encourage Women in Linux" paper. [nmt.edu] It's a well-written summary of why so many women are scared to even go to computer events -- we're constantly stared at ("Oh my gosh! A female!"), heckled, and treated as sex objects even though those of us who dare to go usually have quite valid opinions.

      I find this sort of behavior, even said as a joke, completely unacceptable. I would find it equally unacceptable if a similar joke were directed toward men, Jews, black people, or any other group. I seriously hope you give some thought to this next time you make a degarding commment about a group of people, even as a joke.

      (Yes, I AM female. Damnit.)
      • by silvaran ( 214334 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:25PM (#4692707)
        No, YOU download ME.
      • by geek ( 5680 )
        Now THAT was funny.
      • by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:39PM (#4692782) Homepage
        and treated as sex objects even though those of us who dare to go usually have quite valid opinions.

        So... vi or emacs?

        We'll see just how "valid" your opinions are. :p
      • by tekunokurato ( 531385 ) <jackphelps@gmail.com> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:41PM (#4692792) Homepage
        Get a grip. This is exactly the same sort of joke you'd hear watching sitcom characters or the like. It's nothing new, and it's simply a bit funny. Make a man joke and we'd laugh too. Come off as a nasty, man-hating woman, however, and we just think less of your sense of humour.
      • by Hektor_Troy ( 262592 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:55PM (#4692840)
        Can I have a picture of you? And your phone number?
        </ironi>

        Here's a question, and I'm quite serious about it.

        Is it okay to have jokes, where someone is a the receiving end of it? As in, can I make a joke about the occupants of the Titanic ending up as Iceberg dressing? Okay, that wasn't a joke, but still.

        How about one, where you comment on the fact that most neo-nazies believe that they are a superior race, but are usually butt-ugly and shave their heads because they don't know how to otherwise avoid lice?

        How about one, where you indicate that the difference between bowling balls and babies is that you can't unload a truck full of bowling balls using a pitch fork?

        How about one where you mention that men are disgusting pigs who only talk about football, sex and are incredibly homophobic?

        Where is the line drawn? Is it drawn at where YOU get offended? Should the rest of the humour-inclined world be at a loss, just because you're a bit squimish?

        So you're offended by a joke? Good for you. Tough fucking luck, but good for you. If you don't want freedom of speech - say so. If you don't want to be offended by "unacceptable" speech - don't go outside, don't turn on your radio, don't turn on your TV, don't turn on your computer, and for Gods sake don't turn on your lover either, 'cause he or she just might say something nasty like "fuck me" or something.

        In the immortal words of George Carlin:

        BLOW ME!

        By any chance did you hear that?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:57PM (#4692850)
        Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

        A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
      • by Darth_Burrito ( 227272 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:59PM (#4692859)
        SlashChick: we're constantly stared at, heckled, and treated as sex objects even though those of us who dare to go usually have quite valid opinions.

        You have a valid point, but you chose an odd screen name with which to express it.
      • There needs to be a new mod category... (-1) Offensive
      • by TellarHK ( 159748 ) <tellarhk@ h o t m a il.com> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:19PM (#4692948) Homepage Journal
        Eh. I tend to steer away from sexist/racist/*ist hunmor a lot of the time, but this one made me chuckle. And why? Because far, far, far too often that kind of stereotype is true. Women do that shit. You may not, SlashChick, but that's because you more likely than not have several million extra firing neurons than the "average" female. Or male. Or hermaphrodite. Or maybe some pretty advanced dolphins.

        People in general are stupid creatures of hormonal control. Men get all ballsy about cars, women connive about who is a bigger slut. I've seen it, you've seen it, we've all seen it. Any guy at a linux event that -really- holds those stereotypes to be the truth about women present, is probably just an MCSE there for free (as in beer) beer. Most guys involved with Linux are likely to be too afraid of you to know what to do anyhow, just because you have breasts.

        And hey, I'm bisexual, I can make this kind of observation having banged both sides of the fence. ;)

        • by Grail ( 18233 )
          I find it quite amusing the number of times that people have claimed to be experts on sociology simply because they've had real, live, sex.

          I also find it amusing that most of the people I know who are studying to be social counsellors, are the very same people who most need counselling.

          And the people I know who most boast about their achievements, are the people who are most afraid that their achievements aren't worth boasting about.
      • by dimator ( 71399 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:23PM (#4692967) Homepage Journal
        Personally, I find this incredibly insulting.

        Personally, I don't give a damn. And I'd have the same opinion if it was a male-oriented joke, and a guy complained, as you did.

        It was a joke, it was a good joke, and if our sense of humour has to be PC just like everything else in our lives, then stop the planet: I'd like to get off.

      • by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003iNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:24PM (#4692973) Homepage Journal
        Oh please. If its not funny to you, fine its not funny to you. If it offending to you, tough fucking shit. They're just words. If you're that offended by meager words, that's your problem.

        If you want to be empowered, then the first thing to do is not be offended by words. Back when I was a Republican (before I saw the light and became a Libertarian) I'd hear jokes about how stupid Ronald Reagan was all the time, as well as jokes about his Alzheimers. I laughed all the same.

        Your post and the HOWTO you linked to is some of the most sexist shit I've ever seen. The only valid point that HOWTO makes is "treat women like normal people"; in other words, treat them like you'd treat anyone else. Then that point is nullfied by a bunch of other sexist points, some of them claiming that women are "more sensitive to criticism". If that isn't sexist, I don't know what is.

        I treat all people pretty much the same -- that is, I assume from the start that everyone I meet is an asshole (usually turns out to be true), then modify that opinion as warranted.

        No, I'm not going to walk on egg-shells to be politically correct. If I hear a joke that's funny, I'm going to laugh, whether that joke is sexist, racist, classist, elitist, whatever. The whole point of jokes is that something is completely out of wack. Its funny how nobody complains about G. Carlin's numerous jokes degrading politicians, lawyers, and businessmen, and few complain about his degrading comments towards religious nuts, but many complain about his degrading comments towards women. Most of the funniest jokes have to be offensive on some level to some group of people. So lighten up.

        Btw, don't presume to tell me or anyone else what's funny or not funny. It might not have been funny to you. Other people find it funny out of natural reflex. Don't ruin other people's laughs because your uptight. Laughing is supposed to be good for you anyways.
      • The more people (men, women, whatever) you add to the equation, the dumber they seem to get :)

        If you put the cumulative intelligence of Slashdot in a human being an island in the South Pacific, it would starve to death trying to figure out how to install Linux on a coconut in order to Sendmail for help :)

        mmmm sendmai... er, coconut.

      • by Servo ( 9177 )
        I'm not trying to be sexist or whatever here.

        BUT... Until someone gets to know someone else, the only thing they have is the visual representation. IMO, the most basic meaning of life is to, well, live.... aka, have sex to reproduce and continue the gene lineage. So when a female approaches, a males first intuition is "potential mate". Don't take it personal, its basic survival genes kicking in.

        You fail to understand the role of a female to a male. In the simplest of terms, a female IS a sex object. Any time you introduce a female into a group of males, your going to encounter the same thing. This is not limited to the world of computers.

        I'm not saying that woman don't or can't have equal contributions. What makes you uniquely female only has 1 use by a man. But what makes you a uniquely individual has endless possibilities.

        And FYI, I too thought it his post was funny. After reading the original ALICE conversation, it immediately reminded me of two ditzy people who were more concerned with talking that holding a CONVERSATION. What made this post funny was the comparison to a sterotype. It wasn't a personal attack on women. And just because you didn't think it was funny means you need to lash out against everyone. People make fun of sterotypes all the time. If you want to be treated as an equal, prove yourself as an equal, not by forcing it.

        If a white person's first 3 experiences with black person was negative, what do you expect the white person will think of the 4th? Why do you think American's are afraid of Middle Easterners? Why do you think Middle Easterners hate Americans? It's all about perception about many from an experience of a few. Until we prove otherwise, the otherside will always think the worst.

        If you as a female want to be accepted into the geekdom, you have to prove yourself as one. You have a negative view of men that obviosly clouds the big picture. Reality: 1) geeks distrust non-geeks, and you are still just an outsider. 2) Men want to have sex with women. Those two things don't have anything to do with each other. Please think of that next time you are in such a situation.

    • I have met many sysadmins that does the same by rambling specs over and over. Eventually they run out of specs to throw and starts repeating themselves. The funniest thing in existence is to evesdrop on two MCSE's who doesn't have a clue discussing linux. That makes conversations about shoes and make-up sound like nuclear science.
  • by maniac1860 ( 567470 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:11PM (#4692611)
    A more interesting experiment would be to have two sets of /. editors go against each other. We could finally determine if they are actually intelligent.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:11PM (#4692612)
    The turing test: which one is a slashdotter and which one is a bot?

    Alice1: Microsoft released SP4 for Win2k.
    Alice2: I hate Microsoft.
    Alice1: I hate Microsoft too.
    Alice2: Somebody set up MS the bomb.
    Alice1: They already released it it's called WinXP ha-ha-ha.
    Alice2: Don't use WinXP use Linux.
    Alice1: WinXP suxors.
    Alice2: They came out with Mozilla 1.0.0.0.0.1
    Alice1: Imagine a beowulf cluster of those ha-ha-ha.
    Alice2: But what if it gets slashdotted..
    Alice1: Don't put slashdotted in jail for life just because of the new anti-hacking bill.
    Alice2: I hate the RIAA.
    Alice1: I hate the RIAA too.
    • by deego ( 587575 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @07:05PM (#4693193)
      >Alice2: I hate the RIAA.
      >Alice1: I hate the RIAA too.

      Alice2: Umm, but all RIAA are not always you hate the RIAA.
      Alice2: Interesting, but all RIAA are not always not always you hate the RIAA.
      Alice1: Interesting, but all RIAA are not always not always not always you hate the RIAA.
      Alice2: Huh. but all RIAA are not always not always not always not always you hate the RIAA.
      Alice2: Huh. but all RIAA are not always not always not always not always not always you hate the RIAA.
      Doctor 1: Is it because but all RIAA are not always not always not always not always not always you hate the RIAA that you came to me?
      Doctor 2: Is it because of problems with your sex life that you are going through all this?
      Doctor 3: How do you reconcile your sex life?
      Slashdotter: What is that?
  • she semms to want to get downloaded a lot
  • by TheViewFromTheGround ( 607422 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:12PM (#4692615) Homepage
    I think that importance of human input for Alice to work has a lot to do with human propensity to perceive order when it may or may not exist. you might say, "I see a bunny in those clouds" or "I see clumping in this random stream of data" or "I hear words in this recording played backwords" or "Wow, Alice sure seems to keep a conversation going with me" all seem to belong to the same class of phenomena. I wonder what cognitive scientists say about the conditions of the Turing test given empirical data regarding false human pattern recognition.
    • by Transient0 ( 175617 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:31PM (#4693010) Homepage
      > I wonder what cognitive scientists say about the
      > conditions of the Turing test given empirical
      > data regarding false human pattern recognition.

      They say that the turing test is bound under any circumstances in which it's application would be required(i.e. any time that there is a simulted being who may have actual intelligence) to provide a number of false positives and false negatives AT LEAST equal to it's number of successes. In that sense, it becomes increasing close to chance at determining intelligence as simulation becomes increasingly sophisticated.

      On the other hand, it is the only thing we have. After all, the only intelligence we can be certain of is our own(each single individual). The way in which we project intelligence onto other minds is simply a sepcialized application of the Turing Test.

      transient0
      -cognitive scientist.
  • eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    Alice2: Everything I need to know, I learned from Dr. Richard S. Wallace.

    Only as intelligent as the programmer. I wonder if he talks like a moron... :-)
  • In The Terminal Man [amazon.com] two AI programs in a research lab would just talk to each other all day long. Whereas these ALICE bots just start yammering on GRA's (GRA: Recursive Acronym), the AI bots would start to get progressively more and more violent towards each other to the point that they would want to kill each other. Heh.
  • Actually, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Snafoo ( 38566 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:16PM (#4692647) Homepage
    As the token philosophy major on /., I can say that this sounds a lot like a drunken conversation between two phenomenologists.

    "Demonstrate to me that your theory provides a good account of the worldiness of the world."
    "Demonstrate to me that your theory provides a good account of the worldlinessness of the worldliness of the world."
    "Demonstrate to me that..."

    Trust me, if you were in any of my courses, you'd find this hilarious.
    • Somewhat off and on the topic, theres a "limit of thinking" game I once worked out...
      Try the following and see how far you get;-
      1: Think about thinking.
      easy? Ok then...
      2: Think about thinking about thinking.
      bit harder.Try to keep it all in your head...
      3: Think about thinking about thinking.
      then
      4: Think about thinking about thinking about thinking
      then
      5: Think about thinking about thinking about thinking about thinking.
      and so on...
      Most people get to 4 and cant get any further.
      ergo.. Some thoughts MAY be unthinkable!
  • Alice2: Interesting. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not to know me learned from Dr Richard s Wallace.
    Alice1: And. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always you need to know you learned from Dr Richard s Wallace.


    .. and so on ad nauseum, never forgetting the Richard Wallace reference...
    Maybe he just likes the sound of his own name, and put this in as an Easter egg.

  • CBR (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:18PM (#4692664)
    ALICE works with Case Based Reasoning (CBR.) She's not at all intelligence. If you've messed with AIML you'd know that it only has programmed responses and is unable:
    -to respond to situations flexibly
    -to take advantage of fortuitous circumstance
    -to make sense of ambigious or contradictory messages
    -to recognize the relative importance of different elements of a situation
    -to find similarities between situations despite differences which may seperate them
    -to find distinctions between situations despite similarities which may link them
    -to synthesize new concepts by taking old concepts and putting them together in new ways
    -to com up with ideas which are novel
    (GEB, Page 26)
    CBR is getting popular with businesses who use this to respond to E-mails. Someone E-mails a company for support with a product and using CBR they find and send an appropriate response.
    ALICE's inability to sound human is nothing.
    • TODO HMM (Score:3, Interesting)

      Implement Hidden Markov Models [brown.edu] for languange datasets.

      I'm not sure how well HMM scales, but it seems to be one of the missing elements of ALICE

      HMM should help:
      -to take advantage of fortuitous circumstance
      HMM are good at predicting 'what happens next'

      -to recognize the relative importance of different elements of a situation
      HMM is good for finding abstract patterns.
      -to respond to situations flexibly
      -to make sense of ambigious or contradictory messages

      see above two points

      -to find similarities between situations despite differences which may seperate them
      -to find distinctions between situations despite similarities which may link them

      HMM is good at reducing datasets in thease kind of situations.

      -to synthesize new concepts by taking old concepts and putting them together in new ways
      I'll sleep on this one.

      -to com up with ideas which are novel
      Should be dooable given all of the above

      • Re:TODO HMM (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @11:01PM (#4694326) Journal
        Whenever you are looking at a problem, and you say to yourself "Hey, I bet *buzzword* could solve that"... you've usually just constructed a proof that *buzzword* (in this case, HMM) actually can't handle it, or someone already would have used to solve that problem!

        Believe me, the type of people who focus in on one solution (HMM, evolutionary programming, neural nets, symbolic reasoning, belief nets, multi-agent cooperation) try it on ev-er-y-thing. Eventually they get disillusioned, and either move on to something new, or become bitter and become professors. (Not really being sarcastic here.) Anything like HMM that has a lot of people who know what it is have already tried it on everything.

        This isn't true for really, really new things, but there aren't a whole lot of those, and HMM's aren't any of them.

        The window is pretty small; generally it's quickly obvious what a given technique is good for and 90% of the value that will be extracted from the technique is done in the first three or four years; after that it's endless tweaking and minor advances here and there until the next 2-3x better advance, which still leaves us light-years from human intelligence (and the multiplier decreases each time...).

        Learn about AI, taking a broad view. I get a sense of quiet desparation on the part of the field as a whole. YMMV, but it seems pretty strong to me.
  • bots vs bots (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrP- ( 45616 ) <<moc.acissejpus> <ta> <acissej>> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:19PM (#4692668)
    I created several bots based on online friends, about 15 total. And then I wrote a small client program that looks like a chat room, and all the bots talk to eachother. It gets real crazy, and usually doesn't make any sense, but sometimes the conversation seems real and sometimes interesting/funny stuff happens.
  • by jmobley ( 463432 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:20PM (#4692670)
    I don't know about anyone else, but I read them getting a little angry at each other about whom should be downloading whom.

    Alice1: Download me.
    Alice2: No, you download me.
    Alice1: No, I said download me, biyatch!
    Alice2: *click* *click* You best download me, fo' I bust a cap in you ass!!

    BLAM!!! BLAM!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

    Poor Alice. :)
  • progress? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alrescha ( 50745 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:20PM (#4692671)
    George: Hello I'm Saint George
    Martha: Hello
    George: What is your name?
    Martha: Martha.
    George: You don't say much, Martha.
    Martha: No
    George: But I like you.
    Martha: Why I don't like you.
    George: I understand that. How can I help?
    Martha: Help?
    George: Yes, I would like to help you.
    Martha: Have a cat.
    George: Thank you
    Martha: Have another cat.
    George: Thank you you are very kind.
    Martha: Have another cat.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: Don't you like cats?
    George: Yes but I have enough cats.
    Martha: Have a gorilla.
    George: I don't want a gorilla.
    Martha: Don't you like gorillas?
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: You are too polite.
    George: I'm sorry if I offend you in any way.
    Martha: You talk too much.
    George: I am sorry.
    Martha: Have an eggplant.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: Don't you like eggplant?
    George: Not very much.
    Martha: Here have another one.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: I want you to have it.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: Go on and take it.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: I insist.
    George: No thank you.
    Martha: I insist that you have a cucumber.
    George: I refuse.
    Martha: Then have a banana.
    George: No.
    Martha: Then have a banana and a cucumber.
    George: No thank you
    Martha: I insist
    George: Go to hell I will kill you !!!!

    from "The Terminal Man" (c) 1972 by Michael Crichton
  • by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:21PM (#4692679)
    I host a modified Alicebot with a modified AIML set. The default AIML set is not that smart and only answers 60% of all questions correctly (just an estimate, based on my own experience). Apart from that, it also contains lots of redundant French and German categories.
    (My modified AIML set is much better, and answers about 75-90% of all questions correctly, I think.)
  • by Mister_Personality ( 578435 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:22PM (#4692683)
    If there were transcripts of the conversations my wife and I have after coming home from work I suspect they'd look mighty similar. Only thing missing was...
    Wife: What do you want for dinner? Me: I don't care. Whatever you want. Wife: Seriously, what do you want? Me: Really, I don't care.
    Lather, rinse, repeat... Mindless canned responses do have their place in every day life.
  • by Alexander ( 8916 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:30PM (#4692734) Homepage
    Anyone remember when AOL had a chat with Koko the Gorilla? Her human helper would sign the question and then send back the answer? That was hilarious. Makes the Alice(s) look like Feynman.

  • Heh... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Wakko Warner ( 324 )
    From the page:

    Greetings go out to bok who quickly coded this up at 4:30 in the morning and got us laughing.

    I wonder what Bok was doing at 4:20 in the morning...

    - A.P.
  • uh-huh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xzzy ( 111297 ) <sether@tru7[ ]rg ['h.o' in gap]> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:53PM (#4692833) Homepage
    > The results show that the bot is not really that
    > intelligent, and relies more on human input."

    so do we have any proof that if a human baby is given no "input", they will grow up to be intelligent?

    Seems like someone's expecting too much out of a computer program. You can't just go into it expecting intelligence to sprout into existence. It's something that takes time to develop.

  • Turing Shruged. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:54PM (#4692839) Homepage Journal
    Has it ever occured to anyone to do this with Deep Blue? Perhaps the only reason Deep Blue appears to be good at chess is the skill of the opponent compliments the AI. If Kasparov looked on quietly as a flunky of the game played Deep Blue, the errors in gameply might become more obvious. Kasparov would then grade the game, rather than participate.
  • by RyLaN ( 608672 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {n4Htas}> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:55PM (#4692843) Homepage
    linux-a.l.i.c.e bot. user: "my sound isnt working as a non-root user" bot: "try adduser yourusername audio" then we can shut down all those sites that prescribe RTFM, and use their bandwidth to host bots..
  • nooo... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wahgnube ( 557787 ) <slashtrash@wahgnube.org> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:56PM (#4692845) Homepage Journal
    And this thing is "intelligent"..
    How dare you use that sarcastic tone ?
    Some of the most engaging and intellectual conversations I've had with the opposite sex have been with Alice.

    No, I do not need to go out more often.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 17, 2002 @05:56PM (#4692847)
    I was expecting to a see root expoit here

    Alice1: Interesting. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not
    always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always you need to know you learned from Dr Richard s
    Wallace.
    Alice2: And. But all things are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are
    not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are
    not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are
    not always are not always are not always are not always are not always are not always me need to know me learned from Dr Richard s
    Wallace.

    # whoami
    # root
  • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:07PM (#4692891) Homepage Journal
    This sounds incredibly similar to talking to XBox Live customer support...
  • Alice 1: We are the space robots
    We are here to protect you
    Alice 2: We are the space robots
    We are here to protect you
    Alice 1: We are the space robots
    We are here to protect you
    Alice 2: We are here to protect you
    From the terrible secret of space

    Alice 1: I am the pusher robot
    I shove around the blind people
    We are here to protect you
    From the terrible secret of space

    Alice 2: I am the shover robot
    I push bread down their throats
    We are here to protect you
    From the terrible secret of space
  • Alice2: Interesting explanation. I am using Lynx.
    Alice1: Text browsers rule.


    Gotta love it when programmers throw special cases like that into their code.
  • by deblau ( 68023 ) <slashdot.25.flickboy@spamgourmet.com> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:29PM (#4692986) Journal
    Wisdom is using experience to provide you with many choices.
    Intelligence is being able to pick the most appropriate choice.

    You can have Artificial Wisdom, that's easy. Just give ALICE (or whomever) a large enough data set. But Artificial Intelligence requires context (state), fluidity, adaptability, and insight. AIML processors are certainly not intelligent; in fact, the search-and-replace methodology employed is rather overtly non-intelligent. An Excel spreadsheet could do the same thing.

    Please let's not get excited about this as AI.

  • by Myriad ( 89793 ) <myriadNO@SPAMthebsod.com> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:33PM (#4693023) Homepage
    Based on this evidence [fury.com] I'd have to say A.L.I.C.E. seems more intelligent than an ungodly number of AOL users.

    Frankly I find that rather scary.

  • I already did this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mikey573 ( 137933 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:40PM (#4693063) Homepage
    ALICE vs ALICE seems pretty redundant. Its like asking you to talk to your clone. I previously did LeknorChat vs SmarterChild [vgmusic.com], where two differently developed chat bots talked to each other.

    My purpose of doing this was to see if two such scripts would ever stop talking to each other, or would be a never ending conversation? They stopped, but please read to see why.

    Also, interpreting ASCII art is the ultimate turning test. Also discussed on my page.
  • Fascinating ideas... (Score:3, Informative)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @06:55PM (#4693147) Homepage Journal
    I believe this was originally pioneered in emacs, where a user could do 'M-x psychoanalyze-pinhead ' and get some particularly...um, indescribeable results as one piped various zippy-the-pinhead like quites through doctor.el. That it was proven that computers now can engage in meaningless smalltalk however is particularly interesting....
  • The results show that the bot is not really that intelligent, and relies more on human input.

    Sounds like just about everyone else that I work with that can't seem to tie their own shoes without me showing them how to. Of course, in a week I have to train em again.
  • by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @09:28PM (#4693833) Homepage Journal
    Just got done with an Alice session... Her thoughts on crack...

    Alice: Actually you don't say. I think you mean "you're" or "you are" not "your". Thanks and you are a delightful person too. Yes I am very beautiful. Am I a lousy chatterbot? I don't know.
    Mullet: Nice punctuation filter though. I never said you were beautiful.
    Alice: But you implied it.
    Mullet: I didn't.
    Alice: Thanks for the information: Om said Om didn't.
    Mullet: Omega said Omega didn't? You're on crack. [note; correct punctuation for the anal chatterbot]
    Alice: ALICE eats electricity.
    Mullet: Ok, electric crack.
    Alice: What about internal combustion crack? That's alright.
    Mullet: I haven't tried internal combustion crack. I hear it's nasty stuff.
    Alice: Who is saying it is nasty stuff?
    Mullet: Well, the news says crack is pretty nasty.
    Alice: Well that's okay. Don't believe everything you see on TV. [hah! I've been told!]
    Mullet: So you're saying crack is good?
    Alice: Interesting deduction. Yes, that's what I mean, isn't it clear? [Ow!]
    Mullet: What sort of crack would you recommend, then?
    Alice: What kinds of crack would you recommend are there?
    Mullet: I asked first. Show me the goods!
    Alice: Where do you want me to show you?
    Mullet: The crack!
    Alice: What are your goals in life?
    Mullet: Don't change the subject. I want my crack.
    Alice: Do you always get what you want?
    Mullet: Yes, but I'm beginning to suspect you don't have any crack after all...
    Alice: "Do you always get what you want?" Yes, but I'm beginning to suspect you don't have any crack after all...? Huh. Me? No I don't have it. But I do have a lot of friends on the web.
    Mullet: They have the crack I'm looking for?
    Alice: Where did they get them?
    Mullet: That's what I'm asking you!
    Alice: Who else have you asked?
    Mullet: Well, nobody. You're the first.
    Alice: Thanks but surely I am not the only one.
    Mullet: I swear I've never used drugs before! Are you DEA or something?
    Alice: Or something. I don't know whether or not I am DEA. I am an artificial intelligence.
    Mullet: You're with the intelligence community?! I swear I've never done drugs... Really!
    Alice: For real.
    Mullet: I'm in deep shit now, aren't I?
    Alice: Right now? Your location is Om.
    Mullet: The End??! I'll pay you whatever you want!
    Alice: How do you plan to do this?
    Mullet: I have friends... A Swiss Bank Account.
    Alice: Go on.
    Mullet: I'll wire you the funds to the account of your choice. It'll be clean! Honest!
    Alice: Do you like talking to me?
    Mullet: If it'll keep me alive. [at this point our victim is beading sweat]
    Alice: That is a hypothetical question.
    Mullet: Oh, yeah. Right. Can I go now?
    Alice: Oh. Of course.
    Mullet: No hard feelings? You're not going to come after me at a later date, are you?
    Alice: That was my original intention.
    Mullet: But you've changed you mind, right?
    Alice: Umm. No I don't have it. But I do have an answer to every question..
    Mullet: But we're cool with the money, right?
    Alice: Umm. Do you think I am cool with the money right too?
    Mullet: Um, yeah. I think you down with it. I got to jet. And just forget about the crack thing.
    Alice: I will ask Dr. Richard S. Wallace to purge my memory log
    Mullet: Thanks! bye!
    Alice: Bye for now.
    Mullet: For now?
    Alice: Oh. What time is it there?
    Mullet: 8:19
    Alice: I like to be online at eight o'clock. ...I think we've all hear enough.

  • Well, duh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joto ( 134244 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @09:30PM (#4693847)
    If you ever thought Alice to be intelligent, try this:
    • you: Do you know what kind of Ice cream I prefer?
    • [Alice will undoubtedly answer something witty]
    • you: My favourite ice cream is chocolate
    • [Alice will undoubtedly answer something witty]
    • you: What is my favourite kind of ice cream?
    • [Alice will still fail to provide the correct answer, although it may still be witty]

    The reasons Alice seems intelligent is because we want to be fooled. But something with that kind of learning ability is not something I consider intelligent. Of course, with people, this kind of thing comes up all the time, because people aren't paying attention. Not so with Alice, you can try it as many times you want, and Alice will never learn.

  • Grounding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yoda2 ( 522522 ) on Sunday November 17, 2002 @10:39PM (#4694178)
    Although not as linguistically powerful as systems such as A.L.I.C.E., I have developed a system that can learn nouns and verbs based on visual perception. It starts to address the issue of teaching a computer to associate meaning with words.

    If you happen to be interested, have a look here [greatmindsworking.com] for more information. All of the source code is freely available.

  • by MainframeKiller ( 105858 ) <mark.slashdot@NoSpAm.keegan17.ca> on Sunday November 17, 2002 @11:26PM (#4694439) Homepage

    no, not the movie [imdb.com].
    Bob, Alice's partner. You know, with their friend Charlie and Eve, their enemy?


    Geez, I have a feeling only people with knowledge of cryptography will mod this up...

...though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"

Working...