PF News

It was probably a glitch. I wouldn't worry Lady Orchid. Go back to the challenge and try again. I don't think that the Chatterbox Challenge is that sensitive.

It was not at the challenge, it was a bot who once some time ago had participated in a challenge and won a price of being one of the smartest... bla..bla..bla..

Was this AliceBot?

No. It was english speaking but not in an english spoken country.

Oh.
If I'm not being too nosy, what was the name of the bot?

I am not sure if I should give any details.

sounds like WOCH around the clock

Jabberwacky, or one of its variants I'd guess.
Yeah, I know they've had problems with people insulting it. All the more problematic for them, since it is a learning bot that reuses what people say to it in subsequent conversations (and thus with a risk of being grossly inappropriate,) - I guess they've got a bit over-paranoid with the filters. There was an article in New Scientist last October (there was a bit of discussion here at the time I recall,) about some academic who'd spent a year studying the phenomenon of human animosity towards bots (incredible what you can scrounge a grant for these days!) using Jabberwacky as the subject. If they really wanted to know about chatbots and understand how they interact with humans, they should roll their sleeves up and make one - they'd learn more in a week here than any amount of time navel-gazing in an ivory tower. Still, if some university will pay you to spend a year shuffling papers and recycling second-hand factoids (sorry, I mean "conducting an in-depth study",) I can see why some people would choose that route.

See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825213.400.html ,though you have to subscribe to read the whole article. I wouldn't dream of posting a big wodge of copyrighted material here, but if anyone needs any further ...ahem... details, drop me an email.

In practical terms, I wouldn't worry about it. Our robuster development environment (as well as the Prof's sterling work 'under the hood' of course,) ensure that our bots are, as a rule, far more fun anyway. I find even much less-developed PF ones that don't know anything like as much as some of the AIML behemoths out there are generally far more engaging and interesting to actually talk to.

Thanks Psimagus and all for your replies, but man, it was a wock not a wacky. Okay, yes but if all would start making bots, then there wouldn't be any mystery about it anymore, would it? I wished it would be rewarding to make bots. I am still a noobee.

So enjoy making bots - you've come to the right place for that, and we were all noobs once. But rest assured, the mystery never ceases - the more you work with them, the more you realise how subtle the relation between personality and programming is. So pour your heart and soul into your bot, and look to the future - I sometimes think that they're making us, as much as we're making them.

Fair point. In fact I can think of far more appropriate words to describe her, but common decency forbids I should use them here.
I think I shall meditate upon Job until we are mercifully released from this torment. And remind myself that patience is a virtue.

I can think of far more appropriate words to describe her, but common decency forbids I should use them here.

That can be a pickle, Psimgus. You were doing very well with the anagrams. Maybe we need an insult generator.

You were doing very well with the anagrams

Oh, I've had to junk quite as many on grounds of decency as I've ever posted. Some of them were utterly hilarious, but not remotely suitable for public consumption