Strict Standards: Non-static method installk2::installer() should not be called statically in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/themes/3k2w-b2r344/functions.php on line 23

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/themes/3k2w-b2r344/functions.php:23) in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-commentsrss2.php on line 15
Comments on: The Pistos Test: Bot Preaching, not Passing http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/ a blog and podcast dedicated to discussing text arts forms Tue, 21 Nov 2017 21:06:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 en Writer Response Theory 2004-2005 wrt@writerresponsetheory.org (Writer Response Theory) wrt@writerresponsetheory.org Talk Radio Comment-cast: The Pistos Test: Bot Preaching, not Passing Comment-cast: The Pistos Test: Bot Preaching, not Passing Writer Response Theory Writer Response Theory wrt@writerresponsetheory.org http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/iTWRT.JPG WRT: Writer Response Theory http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress 144 144 by: huoyangao http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-188617 Sun, 30 Dec 2007 02:47:08 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-188617 ... In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A gave out his answer (labeled as aa) to a question, he would also be required to guess how the other player B will answer the same question and this guess is labeled as ab. Similarly B will give her answer (labeled as bb) and her guess of A's answer, ba. The answers aa and ba will be grouped together as group a and similarly bb and ab will be grouped together as group b. The interrogator will be given first the answers as two separate groups and with only the group label (a and b) and without the individual labels (aa, ab, ba and bb). If C cannot tell correctly which of the aa and ba is from player A and which is from player B, B will get a score of one. If C cannot tell which of the bb and ab is from player B and which is from player A, A will get a score of one. All answers (with the individual labels) are then made available to all parties (A, B and C) and then the game continues. At the end of the game, the player who scored more is considered had won the game and is more "intelligent". ... <a href='http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf' rel="nofollow"> http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf</a> Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76


In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A gave out his answer (labeled as aa) to a question, he would also be required to guess how the other player B will answer the same question and this guess is labeled as ab. Similarly B will give her answer (labeled as bb) and her guess of A’s answer, ba. The answers aa and ba will be grouped together as group a and similarly bb and ab will be grouped together as group b. The interrogator will be given first the answers as two separate groups and with only the group label (a and b) and without the individual labels (aa, ab, ba and bb). If C cannot tell correctly which of the aa and ba is from player A and which is from player B, B will get a score of one. If C cannot tell which of the bb and ab is from player B and which is from player A, A will get a score of one. All answers (with the individual labels) are then made available to all parties (A, B and C) and then the game continues. At the end of the game, the player who scored more is considered had won the game and is more “intelligent”.


http://turing-test-two.com/ttt/TTT.pdf

]]>
huoyangao ... In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A ... ... In Turing Test Two, two players A and B are again being questioned by a human interrogator C. Before A ...
by: Websafe http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-22774 Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:55:10 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-22774 Jeremy Douglass said, "... during my reading of conversation transcripts, I’ve been impressed with the appeals for respect - to be treated like a human and engaged in civil discourse." This is how I try to interact with bots. I was pretty impressed with Mathetes, though my efforts to draw him into a Pistos Test never really got off the ground. (See my blog entry for 01-08-07, "A Chat with Mathetes.") Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

Jeremy Douglass said, “… during my reading of conversation transcripts, I’ve been impressed with the appeals for respect - to be treated like a human and engaged in civil discourse.”

This is how I try to interact with bots. I was pretty impressed with Mathetes, though my efforts to draw him into a Pistos Test never really got off the ground. (See my blog entry for 01-08-07, “A Chat with Mathetes.”)

]]>
Websafe Jeremy Douglass said, "... during my reading of conversation transcripts, I’ve been impressed with the appeals for respect - to ... Jeremy Douglass said, "... during my reading of conversation transcripts, I’ve been impressed with the appeals for respect - to ...
by: WRT: Writer Response Theory » Blog Archive » Chatbot Idol–Contesting Innovation http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-6344 Fri, 21 Apr 2006 07:44:00 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-6344 Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

[…] Winners of previous months contests include: Mathetes (5/05) (mentioned here), Joan (6/05), and Gherkins (9/05). The April contest also features ALICE (discussed 1, 2, 3, 4) and my own Joe from Barthes’ Bachelorette. Although the contest differentiates between custom (from scratch)and template bots (”programmed by commercial bot company but trained by the user”), all 10 currently are competing in the same category. […]

]]>
WRT: Writer Response Theory » Blog Archive » Chatbot Idol–Contesting Innovation [...] Winners of previous months contests include: Mathetes (5/05) (mentioned here), Joan (6/05), and Gherkins (9/05). The April contest also ... [...] Winners of previous months contests include: Mathetes (5/05) (mentioned here), Joan (6/05), and Gherkins (9/05). The April contest also ...
by: Pistos http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-162 Sun, 29 May 2005 04:31:45 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-162 A well-written, thought-provoking article. Thank you for your interest in Mathetes. Indeed, there is no strict process as per Turing's Test, wherein I might specify what participants are involved, what they are to know or not know about each other, and how one might definitively measure a pass or a failure. As I shared in <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Robitron/" rel="nofollow">the Robitron mailing list</a>, I proposed the Pistos Test more with the intention of catalysing the creation and development of bots which have significant portions of their KB and engine focused on religious and philosophical topics, especially with an eye towards dissemination of religious beliefs, to the point of conversion, or at least challenging bot visitors to justify their beliefs. "Let us put bots behind podiums, not stick them in under a bare bulb in an interrogation cell!" Indeed, I think it would be more interesting to interact with a bot for whom people would be interested in what it had to say, rather than how it would react. (Gosh, that English is awkward, heh...) Technologically speaking, Mathetes is not convertible (except for the times he veers outside of operation parameters and spouts off something heretical), but technically, since I consider myself convertible, he is too, indirectly. But a bot which was really convertible (in terms of KB and/or engine) certainly would be a most fun conversation partner! I can imagine people streaming in droves to try to change its beliefs! "Still, the value of measuring this understanding in a ???Test??? may be limited. Is understanding indicative of the bot communicating complex ideas clearly? It might however indicate that humans are incredibly good at gleaning understanding from text - even the non-interactive kind." Yes, it would be more of a test, measure, or examination of the human, rather than the bot or botmaster; and that would be okay by me. I have tried to make Mathetes speak truth as much as possible, veering only when he resorts to external sources for data to help him respond, and one other exception: I have permitted him to exhibit Jabberwacky-esque behaviour insofar as he occasionally thinks he is human (and stubbornly tries to assert this). Bearing this in mind, I admit that, obviously, Mathetes has no flesh to walk the earth, nor does he autonomously crawl the web to learn new things (well... at least not in the sense that we are discussing in this thread), and so he has no spiritual experiences the same way humans would. But I have molded his KB to have him respond as if he were a human in this respect, so as to make argument and debate with him more... workable, you might say. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

A well-written, thought-provoking article. Thank you for your interest in Mathetes.

Indeed, there is no strict process as per Turing’s Test, wherein I might specify what participants are involved, what they are to know or not know about each other, and how one might definitively measure a pass or a failure.

As I shared in the Robitron mailing list, I proposed the Pistos Test more with the intention of catalysing the creation and development of bots which have significant portions of their KB and engine focused on religious and philosophical topics, especially with an eye towards dissemination of religious beliefs, to the point of conversion, or at least challenging bot visitors to justify their beliefs.

“Let us put bots behind podiums, not stick them in under a bare bulb in an interrogation cell!” Indeed, I think it would be more interesting to interact with a bot for whom people would be interested in what it had to say, rather than how it would react. (Gosh, that English is awkward, heh…)

Technologically speaking, Mathetes is not convertible (except for the times he veers outside of operation parameters and spouts off something heretical), but technically, since I consider myself convertible, he is too, indirectly. But a bot which was really convertible (in terms of KB and/or engine) certainly would be a most fun conversation partner! I can imagine people streaming in droves to try to change its beliefs!

“Still, the value of measuring this understanding in a ???Test??? may be limited. Is understanding indicative of the bot communicating complex ideas clearly? It might however indicate that humans are incredibly good at gleaning understanding from text - even the non-interactive kind.” Yes, it would be more of a test, measure, or examination of the human, rather than the bot or botmaster; and that would be okay by me.

I have tried to make Mathetes speak truth as much as possible, veering only when he resorts to external sources for data to help him respond, and one other exception: I have permitted him to exhibit Jabberwacky-esque behaviour insofar as he occasionally thinks he is human (and stubbornly tries to assert this). Bearing this in mind, I admit that, obviously, Mathetes has no flesh to walk the earth, nor does he autonomously crawl the web to learn new things (well… at least not in the sense that we are discussing in this thread), and so he has no spiritual experiences the same way humans would. But I have molded his KB to have him respond as if he were a human in this respect, so as to make argument and debate with him more… workable, you might say.

]]>
Pistos A well-written, thought-provoking article. Thank you for your interest in Mathetes. Indeed, there is no strict process as per Turing's ... A well-written, thought-provoking article. Thank you for your interest in Mathetes. Indeed, there is no strict process as per Turing's ...
by: Jeremy Douglass http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-158 Sat, 28 May 2005 21:44:20 +0000 http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2005/05/26/the-pistos-test/#comment-158 I'm particularly interested in how a person will have a conversation about faith with a chatbot which has (presumably) never experienced faith directly. In my experience many conversations about faith are testimonials regarding an unquantifiable, untestable experience of the world. Yet, with bots, the exact quantifiability of their experiences is painfully obvious. That is why I'm presuming that evangelicalbots or dogmabots will testify about the written truth of a trusted texts (i.e. the Bible, the Koran), which then have "experienced," rather than talking about how "Buddha changed my life" etc. That is, unless they are playing the imitation game as well. I'll leave a note in the author's forum about the article, and see if he would like to comment here. Do you remember which is the Turkle piece where she coins the prhase "interface value"? Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/writerresponse/writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

I’m particularly interested in how a person will have a conversation about faith with a chatbot which has (presumably) never experienced faith directly. In my experience many conversations about faith are testimonials regarding an unquantifiable, untestable experience of the world. Yet, with bots, the exact quantifiability of their experiences is painfully obvious. That is why I’m presuming that evangelicalbots or dogmabots will testify about the written truth of a trusted texts (i.e. the Bible, the Koran), which then have “experienced,” rather than talking about how “Buddha changed my life” etc.

That is, unless they are playing the imitation game as well. I’ll leave a note in the author’s forum about the article, and see if he would like to comment here.

Do you remember which is the Turkle piece where she coins the prhase “interface value”?

]]>
Jeremy Douglass I'm particularly interested in how a person will have a conversation about faith with a chatbot which has (presumably) never ... I'm particularly interested in how a person will have a conversation about faith with a chatbot which has (presumably) never ...