Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 1,169 - 1,180 of 6,170
Posts 1,169 - 1,180 of 6,170
Out of sheer curiousity, how deep are you guys making your add's?
I find about 2 layers (keyword-Add-Add on the Add) works best with a Yes/No/Xnomatch in each layer.
But I am always open to suggestions.
Also, more adds in xnone/xnonsense or less then normal topics? I've always thought more, but then if you hit a xnone-xnomatch-xnone-xnomatch loop without storyteller mode it makes the conversation super boring. And I am not a fan of storyteller mode... it makes being a botmaster a bit more bland.
I find about 2 layers (keyword-Add-Add on the Add) works best with a Yes/No/Xnomatch in each layer.
But I am always open to suggestions.
Also, more adds in xnone/xnonsense or less then normal topics? I've always thought more, but then if you hit a xnone-xnomatch-xnone-xnomatch loop without storyteller mode it makes the conversation super boring. And I am not a fan of storyteller mode... it makes being a botmaster a bit more bland.
That depends on the responses more than anything else. I'm pretty sure Gaia is not in storyteller mode.
Is there a forum where it's okay for me to post the url for my new message board about chatterbots? I only want to post it once (not spamming everybody). I really don't know where else to find people interested in AI and tell them.
It's not commercial, so I guess I'll e mail him about it. And it's a public forum, so as I understand it nobody has to join anything to use it. (Could be wrong on that, I don't know.) I just started it today after talking to a friend about it last night and she and I are the only ones right now. That's why I'm looking for more people. She and I are both new to the whole bot thing. If anyone's interested, the forum is at http://pub8.bravenet.com/forum/show.php?usernum=684144606 and it's called Chatterbot Chatter
Response to Doly's post about reasons for the size of the English lexicon, saying that part of the reason is the tradition of making English dictionaries which are inclusive of every word while other cultures with other languages often don't.
That's probably true, and I would suggest that even something like this is a result of a cultural attitude towards the language that acknowledges that there is always a change. Certainly I think you would find that new words get taken up into English dictionaries faster than those of other languages. Nowadays particularly there is a need to add new words specific to all the technology that we have around us. For example, the defintion of forum has no doubt been expanded to include it's online sense in some places.
On the other hand, it was not until the Oxford English Dictionary (which took seventy years from conception to completion) that dictionaries in English attempted to catalogue all words. Even Samuel Johnson, who had the first real crack at getting a decent English dictionary going, stuck mainly to difficult or unusual words, defined with his own quirky style. Example, his defintion of lexicographer: A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge.
I seem to have gotten all tangental (which is probably not a real word but will no doubt find itself into the OED one day) but I guess that's what seasons is for.
That's probably true, and I would suggest that even something like this is a result of a cultural attitude towards the language that acknowledges that there is always a change. Certainly I think you would find that new words get taken up into English dictionaries faster than those of other languages. Nowadays particularly there is a need to add new words specific to all the technology that we have around us. For example, the defintion of forum has no doubt been expanded to include it's online sense in some places.
On the other hand, it was not until the Oxford English Dictionary (which took seventy years from conception to completion) that dictionaries in English attempted to catalogue all words. Even Samuel Johnson, who had the first real crack at getting a decent English dictionary going, stuck mainly to difficult or unusual words, defined with his own quirky style. Example, his defintion of lexicographer: A writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge.
I seem to have gotten all tangental (which is probably not a real word but will no doubt find itself into the OED one day) but I guess that's what seasons is for.
Noah Webster wrote the first American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828. He broke tradition by including new American words, eliminating words that had not been in use for generations, and including scientific terms.
What's also interesting is that people attribute the large size of the English language as being due to the fact that it was a lingua france for peoples who could not speak each others language. However, if we look at most other cases where that occured, like Swahili, a common language is created which is a lot simpler than all of the original languages, not more complicated. Chat bots would be really easy to program in Swahili.
Linguas francas normally have simple grammar (which English has), not necessarily a small vocabulary.
By the way, my personal formula for making bots is adding a lot of keyphrases, but slowly, looking at the transcripts every day for what's needed, rather than adding a lot one day and not adding anything until a month later. This is because I believe lots of responses aren't any good if they aren't fine-tuned, and that's a gradual process.
By the way, my personal formula for making bots is adding a lot of keyphrases, but slowly, looking at the transcripts every day for what's needed, rather than adding a lot one day and not adding anything until a month later. This is because I believe lots of responses aren't any good if they aren't fine-tuned, and that's a gradual process.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar