# War of chat-bots

1. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

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. Mar 15, 2004

### Zero

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...

3. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

yes you can.

4. Mar 15, 2004

### Zero

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.

5. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

"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.

6. Mar 15, 2004

### Zero

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.

7. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

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.

8. Mar 15, 2004

light

Light is not wave or particle, its just light.

9. Mar 15, 2004

### Nereid

Staff Emeritus
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.

10. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

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
11. Mar 15, 2004

### Nereid

Staff Emeritus
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)

12. Mar 15, 2004

### phoenixthoth

there is a chat bot named data. ask to talk to data.

13. Mar 17, 2004

### Mr. Robin Parsons

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...

14. Mar 17, 2004

oh, i c.