Andrew Smith - Aug 19, 2011:

Amilie Anatine - Aug 19, 2011:

Andrew Smith - Aug 19, 2011:

Does anyone else find this thread more than a little comical?

are you trolling?

Not a bit of it, I was laughing for a good ten minutes. Still can’t put my finger on exactly why it seems so funny and I was wondering if it was just me. Maybe I’ve spent too much time coding today and just needed to take a break.

Sorry Andrew if I sounded rude, I was caught off guard.

@Andrew:
No, I wasn’t finding it funny, my friend. In fact, I was worrying that I might have to “step in”, and it turns out that my fears were correct. Having had a long (well, for the Internet, at least) association with Thunder, both here and elsewhere, I’m well acquainted with his feelings about all things Pandorabots; and while I admire his passion, it sometimes leads to outbursts. It certainly sounds like you’re in need of a break.

@amilie just email me

Oh, the drama.  For some strange reason, if you don’t add a smiley face at the end of every sentence, or when you state facts flatly, people think you’re angry and that you’re involved in some kind of “outburst”.  For the record, I’m not.  I imagine that everyone has a pet peeve or two, and this is one of mine.  And I think that we all recognize advertising, promotional press releases, and marketing material when we see it.  I’m smiling as I type this… see?

I have nothing against advertising or Second Life, and chatbots are a passion for me.  It’s the mixing of the cocktail that worries me some, and what Dr. Wallace has called “spamming the server,” which affects me greatly.

Along with my objection to having chatbots in Second Life (specifically Pandorabots and for several reasons I’ve already covered in this thread) I’ve also mentioned that I question the wisdom of allowing those same bots in irc channels as part of a script anyone can use, and in which your AIML bot can be added without your knowledge or permission.  Yet, Pandorabots supports the script and the script writer.

I don’t believe I’ve ever implied that such practices were a TOS violation because I don’t believe they are, if so, please point it out to me.  I believe I may have said, as stated on the Pandorabots page, “Use of automated scripts to make your pandorabot talk to itself or another bot or script” is a violation.  I mentioned it in relation to the unusually high number of interactions that have been displayed by some bots on the Most Active/Popular list.  When I cited a particular bot, the owner replied, “identity absent operates in a closed feedback loop, that is, the bot talks to itself.” 
http://www.chatbots.org/ai_zone/viewreply/6514/

I don’t know all the workings of Pandorabots, or at what point interactions are counted, or how that effects the server, but something about it doesn’t seem right.  Just getting on the list becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Once your bot is seen there, it’s likely to receive more interactions.  Could I have my bot talk to itself all the time in a closed loop just to stay at the top of the list, and thereby create more traffic for myself?

As for whether or not Pandorabots agrees with me, almost every time I’ve reported what I thought was an offender, the bot suddenly disappeared from the list, and I’ve received a thank-you email, and when I’ve been wrong, I’ve been offered an explanation.  No one ever said, stop sending us reports.  If they had, I would.

You can assign to me all of the underhanded plots you wish, and label my conduct as being “school playground behavior,” but I personally created the Pandorabots in Second Life board at the AI Nexus Forum in September of 2009 because it was something new and even our experts couldn’t answer the questions.  Although I’ve never hidden my feelings on the practice, I gave it the platform so it could expand and people could exchange ideas.  Does it sound as though I’m trying to do anyone harm?
http://knytetrypper.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=second&action=display&thread=2101

With regard to advertising myself and my bots, I believe the definition of advertising implies that there would be something to gain from it.  I’ve never profited from chatbots, and I assumed the role of administrator at the AI Nexus Forum when the original owner, a friend, passed away.  It’s pure charity work and I gain nothing from it, although, at times it takes up several hours of my day.

I don’t feel as though any of this precludes me from having an opinion, or expressing it, and no one is forced to answer my posts or to enter a thread I’ve started.  I think people can disagree without all of the drama, but if my efforts to start a discussion are offensive or distasteful, or if some might find my approach too harsh, they have the option to ignore me.  I won’t hold it against you, you can still visit my bots and bot related sites, and I’ll still carry the Chatbot.org banners and buttons.

Finally, has anyone read the first posting in this thread or viewed the YouTube video?  Don’t just take my word for it.  Turn up the sound and pause to read the exchanges, and you’ll see that the bot is not always well-received, and users often make fun of it.

“Hal is completely autonomous and explores the vast community created regions of Second Life on his own. He seeks out groups of people interacting and tries to make friends by introducing himself and joining in on conversations. If he’s not welcome, he continues on his way to explore the land.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwsK3ckMdFs

<—is done with this thread

Thunder Walk - Aug 20, 2011:

When I cited a particular bot, the owner replied, “identity absent operates in a closed feedback loop, that is, the bot talks to itself.”

the behaviour of that particular bot has been modified so that it shouldn’t use such a high server any more. my intention was certainly not to overload the pandorabot servers or anything like that.

Selavy Oh - Aug 20, 2011:

the behaviour of that particular bot has been modified so that it shouldn’t use such a high server any more. my intention was certainly not to overload the pandorabot servers or anything like that.

I understand, and I’m aware of your situation.  I was responding to some of the posts made previously, as well as an email I received from the moderator.  There seemed to be some confusion about my remarks when Dave said:

Dave Morton - Aug 19, 2011:

@Thunder:
I know that you think that having a Pandorabot on SL is a violation of the Pandorabots ToS, but obviously the folks at Pandorabots don’t agree, or they would have taken action by now. At the very least, Rich (Dr. Richard Wallace, CSO of Pandorabots) would have made some sort of public announcement… Since this hasn’t happened, I think it’s fair to assume that, regardless of how you or I might feel, Pandorabot doesn’t intend on doing anything about the situation.

I never said that having a bot in SL was a Panrdorabots TOS violation and that was never my position.  I was merely clarifying it.

To be fair, your bot is not the only one to suddenly appear at the top of the Most Active/Popular list (with double and triple the exchanges of the bot that appears second) for reasons unknown, and it’s only one of dozens that I’ve pointed out to Pandorabots over the years.  It was, however, the most recent, and that’s why I chose it as an example.  I don’t believe you were doing anything underhanded or that you were purposely consuming the recourses.

I might be a little late the party here guys! I guess there are several reasons why people would launch chat-bots into the Second Life world - fun, interest, experimenting?

I know MyCyberTwin has created a few bots for companies to act as their online representatives in SL, such as NASA’s Phoenix Lander - rather than having a full-time staff member sitting in Second Life answering questions all day, a bot can take this role instead!

Shaun Harkness - Sep 23, 2011:

I know MyCyberTwin has created a few bots for companies to act as their online representatives in SL, such as NASA’s Phoenix Lander - rather than having a full-time staff member sitting in Second Life answering questions all day, a bot can take this role instead!

Bada-Bing, Badda BOOM!
Drum roll, please.

Better late than never, Shaun. Thank you .

If you read the first posting in this thread, you’ll see that’s the main concern I have.  Chatbots acting as online representatives roaming about in SL is something akin to washing your hands with gloves on—it’s drinking decaffeinated coffee or non-alcoholic beer—it’s having a glass of water and a toothpick for lunch.  At it’s best, it’s an activity without substance, at it’s worst, it’s a one-sided relationship between two entities where only a single party benefits.  And, in the words of Fielding Mellish, “It’s a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.”

I confess that I wouldn’t mind having a conversation with a NASA representative, but if I bumped into a bot pushing toothpaste, or shilling for a loan company, I don’t think it would hold my interest for very long

It’s also a colossal waste of time for the advertiser.  Watch the YouTube video I’ve linked at the top of this thread.  People rarely engage chatbots with the intent of having a civil conversation, or learning something, they poke fun at them and work at tripping them up, trying to make them look foolish.  I have five bots, and the two questions people ask them most often, regardless of the bot’s character are, “Will you cyber with me,” and “Are you gay?”

I don’t believe that people in SL go looking for chatbots, I think they’re looking for other people.  A chatbot acting as a greeter in a room, or an island, or a building that would describe the environment and its purpose, might be appropriate.  A chatbot praising a new product or service outside of SL would not interest me.  And, if I didn’t know it was a bot when I started chatting with it, I might even be a little offended at having been drawn in and then fooled.

I think chatbots are interesting, fun (both to chat with and create) and they can serve different purposes.  What I find disappointing is when, like everything else, they eventually get turned into something that serves advertising.

There are many forms of communication that you could classify as advertising. Web sites might be one of them. If a bot can be an informative source, on-line 24-7, delivering answers to customers questions, then it provides a service. Deceptive bots (like deceptive advertising) will ultimately hurt a company more than help it.

Merlin - Sep 23, 2011:

There are many forms of communication that you could classify as advertising. Web sites might be one of them. If a bot can be an informative source, on-line 24-7, delivering answers to customers questions, then it provides a service. Deceptive bots (like deceptive advertising) will ultimately hurt a company more than help it.

I agree… and my bots have advertising on their HTML pages.  The distinction is that it’s not the bots delivering the advertising.  I’d think advertising on the page would be easier to ignore than advertising that appears within the conversation.  As far as customer service bots, if I was having trouble with a product or service, or if I wanted information regarding a product or service, Second Life isn’t the first place I’d think of to look for answers.

Customer questions are something you go looking for, they don’t come looking for you when you didn’t ask for any information.

I think customer service bots on a web page are just fine.  I don’t see a lot of difference between advertising bots in SL and the spam that appears in my email.

Hi Dave (ThunderWalk),

Thanks again for all your contributions lately! It shows you have an enormous ‘chatbot heart’, which we love, what we share and what us brings us together over here.

Lately, we’ve seen a few comments on this forum by employees and representatives of companies who build chatbots professionally. I love that they are active on the forum! They are adding value to our discussions like nobody else could do. As large corporations are prepared to pay for their services, they apparently do a good job for this industry.

I’ve noticed that you’re reaction to them is quite allergic in all occasions, accusing them of ‘spam’ all them, and making it a big issue. I’d like to propose to change attitude to keep a positive atmosphere over here.

Professionals work for a company by definition, and that company will define their perspective on the industry. They will simply know more about their own products than about products of the competition, so you can’t expect they are totally objective. That makes sense, doesn’t it? And as long the discussion is constructive and helpful, what’s wrong with that?

I’d appreciate if you value their contributions, raise questions when you’re interested in what they are saying and be active and constructive in discussion. If you have questions about their products, ask them to compare their products with products of the competition. That would certainly make the discussions worthwhile to read. What I do not appreciate is immediately label each comment they leave with ‘spam’, followed by a change to topic of the thread. That’s not the way to go.

If you still think a posting is inappropriate, please use the report link that is available on top of each posting, and click the category of misuse (which also includes spam BTW).

And lastly, I’d appreciate if you use your real name, adding a real picture of yourself and a bio that describes your activities in the chatbot arena. Other members do the same, which matches the open and constructive character of AI Zone, but what makes them vulnerable as well. It’s far to easy to criticize others while remaining anonymous yourself.

Sorry for being a bit strict this time. We’re building a professional, intelligent and constructive forum over there and some clearness on this is appreciated by our members, amateurs, business professionals and academic researchers.

Thanks
Erwin
CEO/Founder Chatbots.org

@Erwin

Sorry if this sounds harsh.

Hello, again.  You may recall I was one of the first people who responded when you initially formed chatbot.org, and I submitted some of the first chatbot listings.  That was even before you’d created this forum and when, at your request, I was trolling the Internet using search engines to locate chatbots for submission along with my own.

I can appreciate your need to protect your business affiliations, and I understand why comments concerning “spam” and chatbot being used for commercial purposes other other than merely as greeters or to offer support information might make you uneasy.  I’d simply prefer to see chatbots employed as something other than roaming advertising billboards.

At the same time, I think it’s unethical to expect a member of this, or any other forum, to compromise their opinions based on your needs.  As fond as I am of chatbots, and as happy as I am to maintain several Pandorabots, you’ll find me praising them both when they are doing well, and criticising them when I’m dissatisfied.  I’ve always been supportive when I’ve felt it was warranted, but I’ve never been shy about raising an issue for debate when I’ve felt it might be of interest to others.  My concern is for chatbots, not for business, and when I’ve offered an opinion, it has always been with chatbots in mind.  I understand that you and I don’t have the same concern at heart, and that your needs are different from mine.  I’d hope that you could understand, and respect that, too.

You’ve repeatedly asked for me to present my name and image and I’ve repeatedly refused.  I’ve expressed my desire for privacy, but at the same time, I’ve said that I’m confident that anyone who really wanted to know who I was or what I looked like could easily find out… especially among this group of savvy computer people.  I don’t see how my facial features, or my resume’, would add or take away from my postings or replies; my opinions wouldn’t change.

I’m also aware that I’m not the only person who is not totally transparent here, but if it would please you, I could easily supply a fictitious name and a false image and swear it was me.

By the way, have there been actual complaints about my positions from businesses or individuals, or are you concerned that there “might” be complaints?

Thunder Walk - Sep 26, 2011:

You’ve repeatedly asked for me to present my name and image and I’ve repeatedly refused.  I’ve expressed my desire for privacy, but at the same time, I’ve said that I’m confident that anyone who really wanted to know who I was or what I looked like could easily find out…

I’ve seen what Dave looks like. Believe me, the blue head avatar he uses is much better!