1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
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)