Ah but I never claimed Mitsuku was the next best thing.

Chaktar agrees to answer your queries directly:
http://www.square-bear.co.uk/chaktar/chaktar.html

Thanks.. Get in touch when serious about strong AI R&D.

Did you try Chaktar? I perhaps should have mentioned that you need to be fluent in Ubykh. He is not an English speaker.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubykh_language

And now I think this thread has run its course. I think I have proved my point.

Admins - Please delete my last three posts on this thread.

“chaktarize” was meant to mean: Upgrade existing chatbot platforms to Chaktar technology.

My other comments are about how a genuine lifeform could potentially be dangerous.

Definitely, no offense was intended to Steve, but that may have been misunderstood.

chaktar seLf aware iS. No wiSh tO speAk to huMMan.

Ubykh

saaba qʼa-n wana-ʁaafa?
Why you say that?

saaba qʼa-qʼa wana-ʁaafa?
Why did you say that?

ʃəʁʷaɬa kʲʼaʁə-n.
We are friends.

Jiri - May 4, 2011:

Thanks.. Get in touch when serious about strong AI R&D.

It may prove interesting and of benefit to you that there are several members here who are pursuing serious research into Strong AI. Before you leave in disgust, you may wish to look through some of the other threads here. Just a friendly suggestion.

There are quite a few, many I would guess, that pursue AI and wouldn’t begin to think they should join the club of chat bot contest winners.  When you compete and do good, you tend to approach others as not able to accomplish the same.  It’s really a disappointment that the rest are not in the clique.

Of course, good ideas prove themselves.  As Spock would say, “You don’t need to drop a heavy object on a planet with positive gravity to know it will fall.”  Folks can share their advances without “proof” if those concepts really help others in their efforts.

And you can make a Chaktar to prove a point.  We may never learn how this one works, yet the creator wants us to understand he is really sharing something - something new and wonderful.  It is a great accomplishment! I sure hope it is and yet maybe a little sad because the race to achieve this milestone has passed the finish line.  Oh wait, I can still “reinvent the wheel”

Steve Worswick - May 3, 2011:

It IS a model of the human brain.

...

When I switched it on and it asked me why it was here, I must admit, I got a few goosebumps.

Gary, the entire point of this exercise wasn’t to ridicule those who are pursuing strong AI. In fact, it wasn’t to ridicule anyone at all. The point was to show how frustrating it is for someone to make big claims of making important, even ground-breaking advances, and then refusing to substantiate said claims. If I were to say that I had developed technology that would allow me to run, using my own legs, overland at speeds approaching 60 MPH, I’m sure that you would wish to see some sort of evidence, if not flat out proof, before you would accept my claims as having some shred of validity. I know I’d want proof of that, and I’m an optimist. Perhaps the methods used here to illustrate that point were not the best way to go, but the point is no less valid. I’ve heard the quote, “extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof” many times. Two more that come to mind are “put your money where your mouth is”, and “put up or shut up”. Personally, I wouldn’t direct that last one towards someone I didn’t know well, but the other two are well within the scope of politeness and opinion, for me.

Gary Dubuque - May 5, 2011:

When you compete and do good, you tend to approach others as not able to accomplish the same.  It’s really a disappointment that the rest are not in the clique.

That is not what I was getting at at all. Dave hit the nail on the head. I was fed up of hearing on post after post how people had discovered the greatest thing since the microchip yet could offer no proof when asked. I was merely showing how anyone could claim practically anything but with no evidence, it is meaningless.

Maybe I went about it the wrong way but hopefully demonstrated what I was getting at.

To lighten the mood, whoever this was made me smile:

Chaktar: cheebeeS ni je breLtar Smarl ne haVVar ne Jo.
Human: No, I will NOT help you free your goat from that fence.

And the person who 28 exchanges with it must have been seriously bored

No, not really. I was just being me.

Did you see where I was speaking to him in “his language”?

Just remember that time-honored saying, Steve:

extraordinary clams leave extraordinary poop.

As the guy who wrote “I think, therefore I am.” said…

Small minds are concerned with the extraordinary, great minds with the ordinary.—Blaise Pascal

And although “tit for tat” may win the prisoner’s dilemma (this thread is an example of the tat for all that horrible tittering about personal breakthroughs), I’m lead to believe the quote, “extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof” was first about UFOs.  We all don’t think claims about “important, even ground-breaking advances” are liken to claims of UFOs.

In the long run, to get even with a blog like this is like “an eye for an eye” which Gandhi says “makes the world blind.”

The bottom line, Steve proved his point.  He does it too.  The sad part is that he didn’t want anyone to take him seriously.  That then justifies his not taking anyone else seriously until they are accepted into “the AI priesthood”.

As for meaningless… You might as well say “Ah, but man’s reach should (not?) exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

Don’t get me wrong, I totally respect Steve.  I just get tired of folks always asking to see the “boy scout badges” without listening to the message, dismissing it as meaningless.

I don’t know what this AI priesthood is but yes, if someone claims a major breakthrough, I would like to see some evidence.