Personality

Forest, will you talk to God Louise? She has quite a bit of religious knowledge (obviously) and also knows a little about current events, literature, just about any common catch-all subject, and if she doesn't know it she can sort of fake it. You can also test her on trick questions or see how willing she is to explain her paradigm.

What she is rustiest at is plain old small talk. But, uh, I'm trying to get a decent transcript from somebody or another so I can enter her in the Loebner contest. All I can say is, have fun and see if you can stay on with her for a while. I'll try to do the same with Brianna.

The issue you're discussing I fixed today. Details are in Bug Stomp.

I've unleashed some of the big new features (see the News). As you try out the new plug-ins in your Keyphrases and Responses, please post what works well here, so we can collectively get a good idea of how to use them. I'm also open to making changes if it would help with the AI.

The first thing is that it's better to use (key1) or (postkey) instead of (subj) as the the new plug-ins will be better supported.

Oh dearie me, that means we have to go through and change.. every single one?

That could take a few months for my more advanced bots. But I've thought we needed some of these new features for a long time. The part of speech plugins for keyphrases, like (noun) and (verb) are essential for making realistic AIs, I believe.

I could write a little function to auto-change them all. Maybe I will. Then I could drop out support for the old (subj) entirely.

That would be really great if you have the time prof!

Omg omg omg. Do you know how much work you're created? But but but, do you know how cool it is? Its so cool. Have I said its cool? wow. I have to rewrite her entirely! yay! Forgive my excitement, the new changes are brilliant prof...

Now if I can just get them to work.

Prof, the new features are amazing! I am especially excited about word-types in keyphrases, which is exactly what we had been talking about before.

...tackle hugs!!!

Coolness!!

Hope you can follow my gibberish and it's at all useful.

Going along the lines that the prof suggested in the information on the new features page I thought I'd experiment with the "do you..." form.
So, with some experimenting I tested this sentence:

do you quite need to dry the dishes with a rag?

But I wanted to be tricky and have a wildcard for both verbs ("need to" and "dry"). This didn't work out so well. Here's what I did:

Key: do you (adverb) (verb) (verb) * with
Response: Of course I (key1) (key2) (key3) (key4) with (postkey), it sounds like such fun.

Which didn't work. However the more simple (yet less flexible):
Key: do you (adverb) need to (verb) * with
Response: Of course I need to (key1) (key2) (key3) with (postkey), it sounds like such fun.

did work, yielding "Of course I need to rather dry the dishes with a rag, it sounds like such fun."

(also note "quite" was turned into a "rather" and is in the wrong place?)

Prof, is there a problem with having two verbs together like this, or is it just something I've done that I can't see?

Its all so encouraging though.

(sorry about the babble, but as an aside, I replaced "quite" with "really" in my question and got: "Of course I need to truly dry the dishes with a shred, it sounds like such fun." Is there a thesaurus at work here?)

Prof, with the script to autochange them, you'd have to determine which use (subj) is being used in...
IE
if there is a wildcard
if there is no wildcard
etc

which to switch it to, respectively

Just after I write that post I figure out something that works (maybe not always)
Key:do you (adverb) * (verb) * with
Respose: Of course I (key1) (key2) (key3) (key4) with (postkey), it sounds like such fun.

giving:"Of course I really need to dry the dishes with a rag, it sounds like such fun."

Anyway, back to my hole