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.

116 Comments on "Disturbing Conversation Between Chatbots"

  1. The 2016 Presidential debates?

  2. The 2016 Presidential debates?

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

  4. Anarchy Pony | Aug 29, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

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

  5. 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

  6. 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 | Aug 29, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

      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.

  7. justagirl | Aug 29, 2011 at 6:35 pm |

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

  8. justagirl | Aug 29, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

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

    • wondering_loud | Aug 30, 2011 at 11:21 pm |

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

      • justagirl | Aug 31, 2011 at 9:29 am |

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

        • Khansultans | Aug 31, 2011 at 4:27 pm |

          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 | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:36 pm |

            wut.

          • justagirl | Aug 31, 2011 at 10:38 pm |

            make silence now.

          • Khansultans | Sep 1, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

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

          • justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

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

          • Khansultans | Sep 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

            let the dead horse beatings begin…

          • justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

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

          • justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

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

          • Khansultans | Sep 1, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

            let the dead horse beatings begin…

          • Tuna Ghost | Sep 4, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

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

          • Khansultans | Sep 7, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

            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 | Sep 8, 2011 at 5:30 am |

            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.  

  9. Kainlarsen | Aug 29, 2011 at 7:07 pm |

    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.

  10. That may be a bit of an underestimation.

  11. Mamagriff50 | Aug 29, 2011 at 8:11 pm |

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

  12. Mamagriff50 | Aug 29, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

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

  13. Im a Unicorn!

  14. Im a Unicorn!

  15. Tio Holtzman | Aug 29, 2011 at 9:19 pm |

    Next, lets have SkyNet talk to HAL.

  16. Tio Holtzman | Aug 29, 2011 at 5:19 pm |

    Next, lets have SkyNet talk to HAL.

    • Jamescavanaugh89 | Aug 29, 2011 at 8:11 pm |

      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!

  17. Unicorn Whisperer | Aug 29, 2011 at 11:15 pm |

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

  18. Themexicanwaiter | Aug 29, 2011 at 11:37 pm |

    “Im a Unicorn”

  19. Themexicanwaiter | Aug 29, 2011 at 7:37 pm |

    “Im a Unicorn”

  20. Anonymous | Aug 29, 2011 at 11:47 pm |

    I, for one, welcome our Robot First Couple.

  21. I, for one, welcome our Robot First Couple.

  22. Jamescavanaugh89 | Aug 30, 2011 at 12:11 am |

    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!

  23. Gerardmcquade | Aug 30, 2011 at 12:47 am |

    wow, that was creepy as hell.

  24. Gerardmcquade | Aug 29, 2011 at 8:47 pm |

    wow, that was creepy as hell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Finnegans Wake, p154

  32. BuzzCoastin | Aug 29, 2011 at 10:18 pm |

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

    Finnegans Wake, p154

  33. purplemountain | Aug 30, 2011 at 4:00 am |

    don’t you want to have a body?

  34. purplemountain | Aug 30, 2011 at 12:00 am |

    don’t you want to have a body?

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

  36. Anonymous | Aug 30, 2011 at 8:09 am |

    Reminiscent of conversations I had with my first wife.

  37. Reminiscent of conversations I had with my first wife.

  38. No, they just repeat sentences people feed into them.

  39. Infrasoft | Aug 30, 2011 at 10:20 am |

    That was funny! 🙂

  40. Infrasoft | Aug 30, 2011 at 6:20 am |

    That was funny! 🙂

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

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

  43. Anonymous | Aug 30, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

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

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

  45. HAHAHAHA – oh I needed that laugh

  46. HAHAHAHA – oh I needed that laugh

  47. Don Bodin | Aug 31, 2011 at 12:03 am |

    Dumb ass

  48. And that is different from the average internet user how?

  49. wondering_loud | Aug 31, 2011 at 3:21 am |

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

  50. Nature's_robot | Aug 31, 2011 at 3:24 am |

    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…..

  51. Maxwill602 | Aug 31, 2011 at 4:27 am |

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

  52. Maxwill602 | Aug 31, 2011 at 12:27 am |

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

  53. justagirl | Aug 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

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

  54. justagirl | Aug 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

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

  55. justagirl | Aug 31, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

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

  56. Kainlarsen | Aug 31, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

    Wow, you sure told me, you stupid prick.

  57. Khansultans | Aug 31, 2011 at 8:27 pm |

    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.

  58. justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 2:36 am |

    wut.

  59. justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 2:38 am |

    make silence now.

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

  61. Khansultans | Sep 1, 2011 at 4:22 pm |

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

  62. justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

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

  63. Khansultans | Sep 1, 2011 at 5:43 pm |

    let the dead horse beatings begin…

  64. justagirl | Sep 1, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

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

  65. Butter Knife | Sep 2, 2011 at 3:59 am |

    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.

  66. Butter Knife | Sep 1, 2011 at 11:59 pm |

    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.

  67. Anonymous | Sep 3, 2011 at 9:02 am |

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

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

  69. Anonymous | Sep 3, 2011 at 9:15 am |

    @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?”

  70. @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 | Sep 4, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

      “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.

  71. Tio Holtzman | Sep 4, 2011 at 1:14 am |

    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

  72. Tio Holtzman | Sep 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm |

    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

  73. Tuna Ghost | Sep 4, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

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

  74. Tuna Ghost | Sep 4, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

    “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.

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

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

  77. Khansultans | Sep 7, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

    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.

  78. Khansultans | Sep 7, 2011 at 8:04 pm |

    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.

  79. Tuna Ghost | Sep 8, 2011 at 9:30 am |

    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.  

  80. Penguins4life | Sep 9, 2011 at 1:56 am |

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

  81. Penguins4life | Sep 9, 2011 at 1:56 am |

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

  82. Penguins4life | Sep 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm |

    Do you believe in god?

    Yes I do.

    So you are Christian.

    LOL *Facepalm.

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

  84. Mallowdrama | Sep 9, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

    i’m ready!

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

  86. Nukeweldor | Sep 18, 2011 at 10:03 am |

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

Comments are closed.