In the development of variable responses which would influence webot responses to incoming textual question tags, has anyone ever considered using Gender based mood variables to influence the bot responses?

Raymond
aka
Peetee le Trickfox

While I’m working on a “mood index” for my chatbot, to incorporate emotional states, and to (eventually) influence responses, I hadn’t thought of also using gender as a modifier. Morti already assigns a gender, based on the user’s name (that is, if it’s in his gender database already, and isn’t an androgynous name), and I’m planning on having Morti ask the user their gender if it’s unknown (I’ve been a trifle lazy in that respect), but only stores the value, and nothing more. It’s certainly food for thought. Thanks for bringing it up, Raymond.

The paper Gary Dubuque cited on the “emotion engine” thread talks about gender and emotion.

In emotion research -Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW)- has shown that words generate different emotions depending on gender. In a bot you can model the emotions directly, but if you are identifying the emotion of your visitor then you need to be aware that there will be gender based differences.

This is precisely my point.
My very first interaction with the “beneficiary” (the live person interrogating the bot) is to obtain a gender definition right away, or else leave open the criteria question such as ({why does gender matter} in the bot’s very first inquiry to the beneficiary) My first interaction may be:( {sense presence} of { beneficiary} )
({ask question} are you {male} or {female} or {this question is not relevant}, if so then {why}).

{why} response becomes a tag that begins the first criteria for further mood variable inputs during the calculation of future response variables.
Response tags will influence variables selected in the MMPI personality inventory database. These tags help to define the bot as a complex emotional character with several outside sensors to enhance it’s response variables.

Does any of this make sense here?

Gee I guess I lost a few people on that last post.

The main problem I’ve always associated with chatbots and virtual agents is the issue (WHY)....Why is there a chatbot in front of me on the computer screen.

In most commercial applications I suppose the bot acts as an FAQ response agent, or else is used to direct potential sales or other commercial endeavor.

I’ve always wanted to experience a conversation with an enormously powerful AI interface which is playing the role of a Psychologists. The purpose would be to collect character traits of the human beneficiary. (the person using the ai agent)

Does anyone know if such a thing exists now?
As I said, I have a problem initiating a conversation with an AI or Chatbot simply because I KNOW that entity I’m talking to is NOT ALIVE. In this regard I find myself asking “what do I say first”...

Unless there is a reason for the Artificial agent to exist for some commercial exploiation or FAQ assistance, why would I begin the conversation?

What is the use of even trying except just to see if and when I will begin getting responses which immediately identify the fact that I’m trying to have a conversation with a machine.

What I’m trying to say here is that; -initiating a normal conversation with an artificial agent is boring and predictable in most cases.
Unless there is a definitive purpose for communicating with such an agent,- there appears to be no other challenge because sooner or later, you find out where the comprehension of the AI interface fails miserably to act as an independent responsive “entity”.

Perhaps I’m just several years too ahead of time by expecting that some day I won’t really feel that way because the Artificial Agent I’m communicating with will respond more like a sentient being.

Until them I can only dream and watch what others are doing with computer languages and memory resources.

Anyhow these are jut a dew thoughts that some of you might be able to ppreciate and respond to.

Best wishes to everyone. I’m doing well health-wise.

Raymond

Raymond Lavas - Mar 30, 2011:

I’ve always wanted to experience a conversation with an enormously powerful AI interface which is playing the role of a Psychologists. The purpose would be to collect character traits of the human beneficiary. (the person using the ai agent)

Pretty close to my dream; having a conversation with a AI that can give me more insights into the questions I’m asking myself. Maybe somewhat like a mentor.

Raymond Lavas - Mar 30, 2011:

What is the use of even trying except just to see if and when I will begin getting responses which immediately identify the fact that I’m trying to have a conversation with a machine.

What I’m trying to say here is that; -initiating a normal conversation with an artificial agent is boring and predictable in most cases.
Unless there is a definitive purpose for communicating with such an agent,- there appears to be no other challenge because sooner or later, you find out where the comprehension of the AI interface fails miserably to act as an independent responsive “entity”.

This is why I stepped away from building a chatbot (with AIML) and started research into strong-AI. Weak AI will always only be as convincing as the developer can make it. It will never somehow start adding experiences and personal development to itself.

Raymond,

Let me try to provide some of the (WHY). In one respect, you are doing the owner of a chatbot a great service every time you talk with the bot. Conversations (especially intelligent ones) are a scarce resource. For most good bot masters, the conversation log is constantly reviewed and looked at as a way to improve the interactions that the bot has with the guest.

Currently, some of the bot masters who participate in this forum are competing in the Chatterbox Challenge. Your conversation can help their bots improve and even in failed conversations it might provide insight into the human language and areas the bot needs work.

From the user perspective, if you are willing to suspend disbelief, like in a movie or book, you can think of your time with a chatbot as a work of interactive fiction. Like an intrepid explorer with a dark cave and a flashlight you embark on an adventure. Some caves are boring. Others, may surprise you.

Some of the entrants into the Chatterbox Challenge you may enjoy are: Mitsuku, Bildgesmythe, and Skynet-AI.
Skynet plays a number of games and has some “Easter Eggs” built in. Mitsuku also plays some games and is one of the most developed bots, and Bildesmythe is the most interesting dragon I have talked to. Each were implemented using a different technology and represent some of the best chatbots have to offer.

Remember though, chat bots at this state of development are much like children. They must be guided and encouraged. If you play along, lead sometimes, and follow at others, you might find the cave surprises you.

Thank you Merlin and Hans, both of your responses have really made my day. I feel very lonely with my thoughts. I keep seeing the future of IT without keyboards, keypads, and mouses. I see strong AI and computers that LISTEN rather than wait for text imput. I think Gesture recognition is one of the first breakthroughs that will help to sort out the issue of Who, or What are we trying to communicate with.
I’m specially happy to hear about your dream Hans. I knew somewhere else in the world there are a few people like me that are seeking that desire to create second generation life or even something more bold than this.
Raymond

Raymond Lavas - Mar 31, 2011:

I’m specially happy to hear about your dream Hans. I knew somewhere else in the world there are a few people like me that are seeking that desire to create second generation life or even something more bold than this.
Raymond

That goes both ways Raymond, I also feel that most AI research is more about ‘software development’ then ‘what it really could mean to HAVE strong-AI’. I’ve been accused here on the forum more then once for bringing philosophy into the equation, but from my perspective the question of ‘what strong-AI will be to us’ is as important as ‘how to develop it’.

I must say that reading up on articles like those from the Singularity Institute (http://www.singinst.org) and seeing lectures from people like David Chalmers and Ray Kurzweil, have given me a whole new perspective on AI-research.

Hans Peter Willems - Mar 31, 2011:

Raymond Lavas - Mar 31, 2011:

I’m specially happy to hear about your dream Hans. I knew somewhere else in the world there are a few people like me that are seeking that desire to create second generation life or even something more bold than this.
Raymond

That goes both ways Raymond, I also feel that most AI research is more about ‘software development’ then ‘what it really could mean to HAVE strong-AI’. I’ve been accused here on the forum more then once for bringing philosophy into the equation, but from my perspective the question of ‘what strong-AI will be to us’ is as important as ‘how to develop it’.

I must say that reading up on articles like those from the Singularity Institute (http://www.singinst.org) and seeing lectures from people like David Chalmers and Ray Kurzweil, have given me a whole new perspective on AI-research.

Indeed Ray’s book “the singularity is coming” was a real eye opener. I also closely follow Ben Gortzel’s every post and public statement as well as as Eliezer Yudowski’s recent papers.

Sometimes I feel like I have no original thoughts left, and there is nothing new under the sun
and I wonder if I will ever finished something important before I move on to other places beyond life as we know it.

As for bringing in Philosophy and strong AI, “Accusations of misplaced irrelevancy” may not be be shared by everyone who post here. I would certainly like for you to continue to share your thoughts on the philosophy of STRONG AI.

Those who think that subject is out of place in this forum need simply disregard these threads. We are not talking about UFO conspiracies and extraterrestrials here, we are talking about the possibility that mankind may someday create a machine that will “wake up” and say “who am I , and what am I doing here”. That day of course we will be face with all the philosophical arguments proposed by people who study Anthropomorphism.

AND WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS?

Raymond

That goes both ways Raymond, I also feel that most AI research is more about ‘software development’ then ‘what it really could mean to HAVE strong-AI’. I’ve been accused here on the forum more then once for bringing philosophy into the equation, but from my perspective the question of ‘what strong-AI will be to us’ is as important as ‘how to develop it’.

I must say that reading up on articles like those from the Singularity Institute (http://www.singinst.org) and seeing lectures from people like David Chalmers and Ray Kurzweil, have given me a whole new perspective on AI-research.

Hans Peter I hope you are still pondering the philosophical views and growing into the transition of the Singularity. I have not yet published but I have 30 years of wisdom to finish cleaning up and preparing. I’m in a race with big competition, but I don’t care because I’m just having fun pursuing my passion.

Best new years greetings to Erwin and Dave, oh, - and the people at ALCOR too

It’s good to hear from you, Ray. I, for one, have missed your insights and thoughts. I expect that you’ve been very busy, to have kept you from visiting. I hope that all is well, my friend.