DISCUSS (60)

Disturbing Conversation Between Chatbots

Posted by JacobSloan on August 29, 2011

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.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • 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.

  • 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!