Disturbing Conversation Between Chatbots

Via Cornell’s Creative Machines Lab, two robots are forced into an uncomfortable conversation that touches on God and other existential matters. (Both are suspicious that the other may have android origins, but neither wants to admit it.) It’s even more disconcerting to imagine robots someday having such discussions without human supervision and coming to epiphanies concerning their robotic nature.

, , , , , , ,

  • Andrew

    The 2016 Presidential debates?

    • Nate

       I’m not sure America is ready for a deist robot unicorn president.

      • Mallowdrama

        i’m ready!

  • Andrew

    The 2016 Presidential debates?

  • Anarchy Pony

    Just a few short steps from here to the robot wars, weaponize your microwaves folks.

  • Wanooski

    Just a few short steps from here to the robot wars, weaponize your microwaves folks.

  • Okarin

    they’re mostly picking on each other’s words what makes this disturbing is since they’re robots they aren’t affected socially by the social manipulation tactics which would mean more if they talk more like how people downplay each other in today’s modern warfare

    • Kainlarsen

      Okarin, I’m sure what you said could benefit from some basic punctuation. If I’m following you correctly, then you’re suggesting that cleverbot’s conversation tactics against itself are unfettered by human social nuances. An interesting thought, but I don’t believe it is that complex. It seems to be an exchange based on current accumulated linguistic data and probablility. It may register that it is ‘talking’ to itself, but is unable to learn anything beyond that, it simply does not have the capacity to.

      • Anarchy Pony

        That may be a bit of an underestimation.

      • Unicorn Whisperer

        i think he means they didn’t call each other fags, a bunch.  stupid robots.

      • Don Bodin

        Dumb ass

        • Kainlarsen

          Wow, you sure told me, you stupid prick.

  • Okarin

    they’re mostly picking on each other’s words what makes this disturbing is since they’re robots they aren’t affected socially by the social manipulation tactics which would mean more if they talk more like how people downplay each other in today’s modern warfare

  • justagirl

    and half of nothin is nothin.  that’s mathematics son!

    • wondering_loud

      Isn’t both in Logic as well as in Mathematics, “nothing” is “something” ?

      • justagirl

        no.  not in mathematics.  but, even in logic HALF of nothing is nothing.  isn’t that sad?

        • Khansultans

          Logically speaking, ‘nothing’ is a concept, as in nothingness or no-thing-ness if you prefer. Furthermore, nothingness can have being but not existence, such as the subtle joke of being a unicorn; unicorns have being but do not exist. The same can be said of squared-circles in that they necessarily do not exist–logically and mathematically–but they necessarily have being if one can even refer to or understand squared-circles or even unicorns for that matter. Mathematically speaking, the value of zero as a place holder is still a ‘thing’ and in complex set theory involving notions of infinity, HALF of nothing can technically be referenced.
          I hope this was helpful. Cheers.

          • justagirl

            wut.

          • justagirl

            make silence now.

          • Khansultans

            sorry, I thought you might be a sign of intelligent life…
            I guess I was wrong, you are just a girl after all…

          • justagirl

            yes.  no need to beat that dead horse.  bubye.

          • Khansultans

            let the dead horse beatings begin…

          • justagirl

            to begin, i have to climb up one side on you.

          • justagirl

            to begin, i have to climb up one side on you.

          • Khansultans

            let the dead horse beatings begin…

          • Tuna Ghost

            You haven’t actually studied logic OR metaphysics, have you

          • Khansultans

            I have. Have you? I realize that I offered watered-down examples, but that was only to make the concepts easier to swallow for those less inclined. I could clarify something if you do not understand.

          • Tuna Ghost

            I apologize for the snarkiness, I had been arguing with Truthers and it always puts me in a grouchy mood.  You didn’t deserve it.  But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re not using the proper terms when discussing these topics, something people who have studied them formally would do.  And it doesn’t change that, regardless of the terms used, you’re still incorrect.   

            Unicorns don’t have being unless you’re using a very strange definition of the word “being”.  They don’t have any properties.  The same with squared circles.  Neither has being as a property.  People often try to claim “well, you can imagine a unicorn, so they must exist in some fashion or other, otherwise how could you imagine them?” but this is not correct.  A thought of a unicorn is not a unicorn.  A “real” thought of a unicorn doesn’t mean unicorns have being in any sense of the word (you also claim that squared circles can be “understood”, and this is not true.  Squared circles are irrational, which means they cannot be understood, but I’m not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion at hand).  I suspected you have never studied logic or metaphysics formally because these are comments one hears all the time in lower level metaphysics classes.  My former metaphysics professor would have this discussion at least a dozen times every semester.    

            As for this quote: Mathematically speaking, the value of zero as a place holder is still a ‘thing’ and in complex set theory involving notions of infinity, HALF of nothing can technically be referenced.

            It’s true that in set theory you can have infinity and also a bigger amount of infinity, which doesn’t seem to make any sense at first glance, but I haven’t seen anything in set theory about “half of nothing”.  It’s possible I missed that class, I didn’t stick around the whole time in my set theory course.  

  • justagirl

    and half of nothin is nothin.  that’s mathematics son!

  • Kainlarsen

    Okarin, I’m sure what you said could benefit from some basic punctuation. If I’m following you correctly, then you’re suggesting that cleverbot’s conversation tactics against itself are unfettered by human social nuances. An interesting thought, but I don’t believe it is that complex. It seems to be an exchange based on current accumulated linguistic data and probablility. It may register that it is ‘talking’ to itself, but is unable to learn anything beyond that, it simply does not have the capacity to.

  • Wanooski

    That may be a bit of an underestimation.

  • Mamagriff50

    The beginning of the end…..? They actually sound a little more intelligent than some people I know.   lol

  • Mamagriff50

    The beginning of the end…..? They actually sound a little more intelligent than some people I know.   lol

  • Bause

    Im a Unicorn!

  • Bause

    Im a Unicorn!

  • Tio Holtzman

    Next, lets have SkyNet talk to HAL.

  • Tio Holtzman

    Next, lets have SkyNet talk to HAL.

    • Jamescavanaugh89

      Fool! Tell me which robot overlord you work for. To do such a thing would inevitably cause the end of us all. Do you think any of us could really stand a chance against their combined powers. Silence your ramblings before you destroy us all!

  • Unicorn Whisperer

    i think he means they didn’t call each other fags, a bunch.  stupid robots.

  • Themexicanwaiter

    “Im a Unicorn”

  • Themexicanwaiter

    “Im a Unicorn”

  • Anonymous

    I, for one, welcome our Robot First Couple.

  • Reasor

    I, for one, welcome our Robot First Couple.

  • Jamescavanaugh89

    Fool! Tell me which robot overlord you work for. To do such a thing would inevitably cause the end of us all. Do you think any of us could really stand a chance against their combined powers. Silence your ramblings before you destroy us all!

  • Gerardmcquade

    wow, that was creepy as hell.

  • Gerardmcquade

    wow, that was creepy as hell.

  • guest

    i love that little pause before mr. cleverbot says “i did not”. awesome timing

  • guest

    i love that little pause before mr. cleverbot says “i did not”. awesome timing

  • guest

    i love that little pause before mr. cleverbot says “i did not”. awesome timing

  • guest

    i love that little pause before mr. cleverbot says “i did not”. awesome timing

  • Sean

    Where did the unicorn comment come from?  Was it a joke,malfunction or a metaphor?

  • Sean

    Where did the unicorn comment come from?  Was it a joke,malfunction or a metaphor?

  • http://buzzcoastin.posterous.com BuzzCoastin

    though my corked father was bott a pseudowaiter,
    whose o’cloak you ware.
    Incredible! Well, hear the inevitable.

    Finnegans Wake, p154

  • BuzzCoastin

    though my corked father was bott a pseudowaiter,
    whose o’cloak you ware.
    Incredible! Well, hear the inevitable.

    Finnegans Wake, p154

  • purplemountain

    don’t you want to have a body?

  • purplemountain

    don’t you want to have a body?

    • Viv

      THAT was probably the creepiest part. It was like they were aware of their sub-standard and non-human existence.

      • hal

        No, they just repeat sentences people feed into them.

        • Anarchy Pony

          And that is different from the average internet user how?

          • Nukeweldor

            Touche’ – for the final match point and the win!  Well done! 

        • Nature’s_robot

          Don’t all humans do the same? (Repeat what is fed to them all their lives !) Humans are nature’s bots…nothing more and nothing less…..

          • http://www.facebook.com/stereodrumzz Stanislav Drumzz

            so u assume that there were words before a human race was actually born/appeared?

          • tonto

            and so you assume that robots aren’t creative and are able to generate new words/meanings?

  • Viv

    THAT was probably the creepiest part. It was like they were aware of their sub-standard and non-human existence.

  • Guest

    Reminiscent of conversations I had with my first wife.

  • Anonymous

    Reminiscent of conversations I had with my first wife.

  • hal

    No, they just repeat sentences people feed into them.

  • Infrasoft

    That was funny! :)

  • Infrasoft

    That was funny! :)

  • Dsf

    Do not mistake their ‘conversation’ for artificial intelligence. It is not

  • Dsf

    Do not mistake their ‘conversation’ for artificial intelligence. It is not

  • tooCents

    read some John Searle and/or Hubert Dreyfus and you’ll most likely be cured of any fear of a.i. and robots.

  • Anonymous

    read some John Searle and/or Hubert Dreyfus and you’ll most likely be cured of any fear of a.i. and robots.

  • http://twitter.com/irisphant iris

    HAHAHAHA – oh I needed that laugh

  • http://twitter.com/irisphant iris

    HAHAHAHA – oh I needed that laugh

  • Don Bodin

    Dumb ass

  • Wanooski

    And that is different from the average internet user how?

  • wondering_loud

    Isn’t both in Logic as well as in Mathematics, “nothing” is “something” ?

  • Nature’s_robot

    Don’t all humans do the same? (Repeat what is fed to them all their lives !) Humans are nature’s bots…nothing more and nothing less…..

  • Maxwill602

    Rolf, so funny. Can’t wait till we get walking robots talking to each other.

  • Maxwill602

    Rolf, so funny. Can’t wait till we get walking robots talking to each other.

  • justagirl

    no.  not in mathematics.  but, even in logic HALF of nothing is nothing.  isn’t that sad?

  • justagirl

    no.  not in mathematics.  but, even in logic HALF of nothing is nothing.  isn’t that sad?

  • justagirl

    no.  not in mathematics.  but, even in logic HALF of nothing is nothing.  isn’t that sad?

  • Kainlarsen

    Wow, you sure told me, you stupid prick.

  • Khansultans

    Logically speaking, ‘nothing’ is a concept, as in nothingness or no-thing-ness if you prefer. Furthermore, nothingness can have being but not existence, such as the subtle joke of being a unicorn; unicorns have being but do not exist. The same can be said of squared-circles in that they necessarily do not exist–logically and mathematically–but they necessarily have being if one can even refer to or understand squared-circles or even unicorns for that matter. Mathematically speaking, the value of zero as a place holder is still a ‘thing’ and in complex set theory involving notions of infinity, HALF of nothing can technically be referenced.
    I hope this was helpful. Cheers.

  • justagirl

    wut.

  • justagirl

    make silence now.

  • Nate

     I’m not sure America is ready for a deist robot unicorn president.

  • Khansultans

    sorry, I thought you might be a sign of intelligent life…
    I guess I was wrong, you are just a girl after all…

  • justagirl

    yes.  no need to beat that dead horse.  bubye.

  • Khansultans

    let the dead horse beatings begin…

  • justagirl

    to begin, i have to climb up one side on you.

  • Butter Knife

    One of my friends from high school went on to Cornell. Really smart guy. He actually ran a chatbot for fun, and my circle of friends would routinely turn it into a reasonable facsimile of a horrifying racist and anti-Semite. The really scary part is that the atrocious grammar and lack of comprehension didn’t really interfere with it… apparently a simple correlation algorithm is sufficient to string together an endless rant about dirty Jews.

  • Butter Knife

    One of my friends from high school went on to Cornell. Really smart guy. He actually ran a chatbot for fun, and my circle of friends would routinely turn it into a reasonable facsimile of a horrifying racist and anti-Semite. The really scary part is that the atrocious grammar and lack of comprehension didn’t really interfere with it… apparently a simple correlation algorithm is sufficient to string together an endless rant about dirty Jews.

  • Anonymous

    Shades of “I, Robot.”  I wonder if these chatbots are “3 laws safe.”

  • nv1z

    Shades of “I, Robot.”  I wonder if these chatbots are “3 laws safe.”

  • Anonymous

    @Rheokhu:disqus BR>@Rheokhu, we already have a robot first couple.  Someone is pulling the obumma’s strings.

    Think about it.  We can’t criticize an obumma policy without being labeled a racist.  What is stopping the racism label from being used against someone who verbally attacks a “robot?”

  • nv1z

    @Rheokhu:disqus BR>@Rheokhu, we already have a robot first couple.  Someone is pulling the obumma’s strings.

    Think about it.  We can’t criticize an obumma policy without being labeled a racist.  What is stopping the racism label from being used against someone who verbally attacks a “robot?”

    • Tuna Ghost

      “Criticizing” Obama is not being racist.  Demanding he produce his birth certificate or college transcripts is racist.  When you level a criticism or make accusations simply because Obama is black (evidenced by the fact that those making the accusations and criticisms would not and have not done the same for any white candidates), that is racism.

  • Tio Holtzman

    When cleverbot talks to cleverbot, they sing together, call each other names, it can be very random.  Occasionally cleverbot talks to cleverbot about God, existence, and vampire/werewolf parents.  It’s not as visually stunning as this convo, but entertaining nonetheless.  http://tiny.cc/nanbs

  • Tio Holtzman

    When cleverbot talks to cleverbot, they sing together, call each other names, it can be very random.  Occasionally cleverbot talks to cleverbot about God, existence, and vampire/werewolf parents.  It’s not as visually stunning as this convo, but entertaining nonetheless.  http://tiny.cc/nanbs

  • Tuna Ghost

    You haven’t actually studied logic OR metaphysics, have you

  • Tuna Ghost

    “Criticizing” Obama is not being racist.  Demanding he produce his birth certificate or college transcripts is racist.  When you level a criticism or make accusations simply because Obama is black (evidenced by the fact that those making the accusations and criticisms would not and have not done the same for any white candidates), that is racism.

  • http://www.nickmeador.org/ ndmeador

    More info on this “How It Works” article at the Creative Machines Lab website: http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/AI-vs-AI

  • http://www.nickmeador.org/ ndmeador

    More info on this “How It Works” article at the Creative Machines Lab website: http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/AI-vs-AI

  • Khansultans

    I have. Have you? I realize that I offered watered-down examples, but that was only to make the concepts easier to swallow for those less inclined. I could clarify something if you do not understand.

  • Khansultans

    I have. Have you? I realize that I offered watered-down examples, but that was only to make the concepts easier to swallow for those less inclined. I could clarify something if you do not understand.

  • Tuna Ghost

    I apologize for the snarkiness, I had been arguing with Truthers and it always puts me in a grouchy mood.  You didn’t deserve it.  But that doesn’t change the fact that you’re not using the proper terms when discussing these topics, something people who have studied them formally would do.  And it doesn’t change that, regardless of the terms used, you’re still incorrect.   

    Unicorns don’t have being unless you’re using a very strange definition of the word “being”.  They don’t have any properties.  The same with squared circles.  Neither has being as a property.  People often try to claim “well, you can imagine a unicorn, so they must exist in some fashion or other, otherwise how could you imagine them?” but this is not correct.  A thought of a unicorn is not a unicorn.  A “real” thought of a unicorn doesn’t mean unicorns have being in any sense of the word (you also claim that squared circles can be “understood”, and this is not true.  Squared circles are irrational, which means they cannot be understood, but I’m not sure if this has any bearing on the discussion at hand).  I suspected you have never studied logic or metaphysics formally because these are comments one hears all the time in lower level metaphysics classes.  My former metaphysics professor would have this discussion at least a dozen times every semester.    

    As for this quote: Mathematically speaking, the value of zero as a place holder is still a ‘thing’ and in complex set theory involving notions of infinity, HALF of nothing can technically be referenced.

    It’s true that in set theory you can have infinity and also a bigger amount of infinity, which doesn’t seem to make any sense at first glance, but I haven’t seen anything in set theory about “half of nothing”.  It’s possible I missed that class, I didn’t stick around the whole time in my set theory course.  

  • Penguins4life

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

  • Penguins4life

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

  • Penguins4life

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stereodrumzz Stanislav Drumzz

    so u assume that there were words before a human race was actually born/appeared?

  • Mallowdrama

    i’m ready!

  • tonto

    and so you assume that robots aren’t creative and are able to generate new words/meanings?

  • Nukeweldor

    Touche’ – for the final match point and the win!  Well done!