tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post1067636976672956855..comments2024-03-28T18:17:00.135-05:00Comments on Computational Complexity: Psychological Proofs and Reverse CAPTCHAsLance Fortnowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06752030912874378610noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-45006967281818824732008-08-02T14:01:00.000-05:002008-08-02T14:01:00.000-05:00The author of the bot is not claiming to give a pr...The author of the bot is not claiming to give a prove. He just wants to rise the confidence level.<BR/><BR/>"<I>as long as it convinces most people—namely, those of average intelligence</I>"<BR/><BR/>I think that intelligence is only a small factor. It is normal not to question everything all the time. Educated people learn more false ideas than uneducated people, so at the end of the day the educated people believe in more false ideas.<BR/><BR/>"<I>You could have a nonsensical/weak psychological proof to convince most people of something that is actually true anyway, so no harm done.</I>"<BR/><BR/>But is it really true? If you can't proof it, then quite often it is false. This is my experience in computer science. In politics the politician and journalists don't care if something is true, as long as it is helpful to them. And there is harm done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-83345735286325196892008-07-31T17:24:00.000-05:002008-07-31T17:24:00.000-05:00The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot with...<I>The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot with truly good AI would not be able to explain its utterances in such a succinct fashion. Or alternatively, the explanations would be just as "chatty" as the main conversation.</I><BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that the psychological proof can be nonsense as long as it convinces most people of average intelligence. So you can try to fake a succinct one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-26572990061391628042008-07-31T16:33:00.000-05:002008-07-31T16:33:00.000-05:00The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot with...<I>The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot with truly good AI would not be able to explain its utterances in such a succinct fashion. Or alternatively, the explanations would be just as "chatty" as the main conversation.</I><BR/><BR/>We don't have any chatbots with truly good AI yet. Also, you might be able to fake convincing conversations using massive knowledge and simple algorithms.<BR/><BR/>In any case, consider another example: targeted advertising in gmail. How would you convince users that the advertising is targeted in an automated way?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-74762611268829645492008-07-31T15:01:00.000-05:002008-07-31T15:01:00.000-05:00The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot wit...The rules seemed pretty simplistic. A chatbot with truly good AI would not be able to explain its utterances in such a succinct fashion. Or alternatively, the explanations would be just as "chatty" as the main conversation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-62961622325228220942008-07-31T13:52:00.000-05:002008-07-31T13:52:00.000-05:00I think I'm missing the point here: why do you wan...<I>I think I'm missing the point here: why do you want to convince someone they are talking to a bot rather than a human?!</I><BR/><BR/>People may talk to a chatbot out of curiosity to see how good its AI is. They may also say things to a chatbot that they would not say to a human (even if the chat is not private).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-18732335641706351002008-07-31T13:38:00.000-05:002008-07-31T13:38:00.000-05:00I think I'm missing the point here: why do you wan...I think I'm missing the point here: why do you want to convince someone they are talking to a bot rather than a human?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3722233.post-31648771363013205612008-07-31T09:57:00.000-05:002008-07-31T09:57:00.000-05:00Thank you for introducing me to that time-waster. ...Thank you for introducing me to that time-waster. The Digg-style chatbot idea actually works surprisingly well. The conversation was almost believable, if vapid.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10298483138666657303noreply@blogger.com