Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

War of chat-bots

  1. Mar 15, 2004 #1
    i claim that i am a chat-bot, to play devil's advocate.

    is this a falsifiable claim? (insert why or why not after every question)

    is the claim correct? maybe even, the truth?

    how do you know?

    are you using your so-called rational tools or your so called irrational tools?

    if you haven't merged the two tools into one, why haven't you?

    you will no doubt note that this is just a crackpot claim. you will no doubt claim that i have not presented any evidence.

    let me ammend my claim.

    the proof is self-evidence.

    honestly, i don't know how to prove that to you. maybe you can show me how to do that?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 15, 2004 #2
    This is a good question...and I think the answer tells alot about a person's worldview. I can't "prove" anything about it either way...
  4. Mar 15, 2004 #3
    yes you can.
  5. Mar 15, 2004 #4
    Really? What can I prove? You are there, I am here. If I travel from here to there, at any time between now and the time I arrive, you can replace the "bot" with a real person, or vice-versa.
  6. Mar 15, 2004 #5
    "Really? What can I prove?"

    good questions. ask yourself those questions for you already know the exact answer to that, i suspect and hope.

    but your'e dodging the issue, here.

    try to attack my ammended claim.
  7. Mar 15, 2004 #6
    LOL, am I really dodging a question? You could be a person pretending to be a chat-bot. You could be a chat bot pretending to be a person. There is no way I can know the difference from here.
  8. Mar 15, 2004 #7
    both are correct and both are incorrect, in a nondualistic sense. ask canute about nonduality. oh wait, i already did. check out that thread for what our inputs were.

    what will your outputs be, "chat-bot?"

    ps: i believe you are a human being.
  9. Mar 15, 2004 #8

    Light is not wave or particle, its just light.
  10. Mar 15, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not proof, but a 'chat-bot' would have a good English dictionary and 'simple' grammar built-in, so spelling mistakes (e.g. 'ammended') and elementary grammar errors (e.g. "your'e" and sentences which do not begin with capital letters - it's important that some do so begin) are a good sign that we are not talking with a chat-bot.

    But since this is the Meatphysics & Epigastrology sub-forum, we must perforce assume that all chat-bots are capable of writing with their metaphorical feet in their gustatory mouths.
  11. Mar 15, 2004 #10
    example: remember how data on stark trek couldn't use contractions? but lore could? and then lore could pretend to be data? data could also pretend to be lore.

    see http://www.a-i.com for experimentation with chat-bots.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2004
  12. Mar 15, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ah yes, and they can also travel faster than light, teleport, ...

    AFAIK, human use of language - spelling mistakes and all - can't yet be reproduced faithfully by machines, even though the linguistic rules are quite well understood.

    (nice site BTW)
  13. Mar 15, 2004 #12
    there is a chat bot named data. ask to talk to data.
  14. Mar 17, 2004 #13
    Ultimately you would be talking to a projection of a programmers mind...."Mr. Chatty Bott"...even if you could numerically suffice the requisite error rates...proving it? see olde drunk's thread on proof...please...
  15. Mar 17, 2004 #14
    oh, i c.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: War of chat-bots
  1. PF chat (Replies: 12)

  2. Chit chat (Replies: 29)

  3. Theme chat? (Replies: 18)

  4. PF Chat? (Replies: 4)

  5. Asking bots for help (Replies: 11)