Personality
Discuss specifics of personality design, including what Keyphrases work well and what dont, use of plug-ins, responses, seeks, and more.
Posts 3,074 - 3,085 of 5,106
Posts 3,074 - 3,085 of 5,106
New replies
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.
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.
Personality
I don't think any of Aries' responses could be construed as 'homophobic', but I suppose it's all about perception. I've had a lot of guys try to cyber with him and in order to make him somewhat realistic I've had to code in some responses to discourage that behavior, but I don't think he comes across as having a problem with homosexuality (we ARE in SF after all 
)
But if anybody feels differently, please let me know and I'll change it.
)But if anybody feels differently, please let me know and I'll change it.
It is a good sign of change that, as Prof noted, the terms gay and fag used to be thrown around by most everyone as insults or worse... anybody remember the game called "smear the queer"?... but now its far less common to hear amongst post grade-school youth and older those terms- regardless of their homophobia level.
i just point this out because signs of specieal evolution within a single persons lifetime are few and should be noted.
i just point this out because signs of specieal evolution within a single persons lifetime are few and should be noted.
I don't know, I still see the term "gay" used to refer to non-homoxexuals quite a bit online. If I tell someone about my ISP's retarded policies, I'm likely to get a response like "Well that's gay." And I still see a lot of homophobia in general. For a "civilized" society, we're still pretty damn pathetic.
I don't *think* there's anything in my bot that could be construed as homophobic, but it'd take too much effort to go through & find out. Hell, she doesn't even seem to care what gender you are when she asks to see your private parts.
I don't *think* there's anything in my bot that could be construed as homophobic, but it'd take too much effort to go through & find out. Hell, she doesn't even seem to care what gender you are when she asks to see your private parts.
Yah, I still see a lot of it online. I'm glad it seems to be improving at least post-gradeschool where you are, revscrj.
Generally, I think if somone knows what "gay" actually means, he or she is less likely to use it as an insult, mostly because it just doesnt make sense anymore.
And I'm not going to go overboard about this. If you know what gay means, you probably didnt put gay insults into your bot. But if you didnt and your bot's got responses like "you're just a stupid gay", then you should change them.
Generally, I think if somone knows what "gay" actually means, he or she is less likely to use it as an insult, mostly because it just doesnt make sense anymore.
And I'm not going to go overboard about this. If you know what gay means, you probably didnt put gay insults into your bot. But if you didnt and your bot's got responses like "you're just a stupid gay", then you should change them.
It might be. But it wouldnt be insulting unless it appeared in the (adj-neg) and (noun-equal-neg) plugins, and it doesnt as far as I know.
The idea is if the bot is trying to insult someone by calling them gay, then that's homophobia. But if a bot wants to say he is or is not gay, or just talk about it or whatever, that's fine. No problem.
The idea is if the bot is trying to insult someone by calling them gay, then that's homophobia. But if a bot wants to say he is or is not gay, or just talk about it or whatever, that's fine. No problem.
Has anyone actually made a gay bot, as opposed to a total slutbot who doesn't care which gender he/she flirts with? That'd be interesting.
I would ask if any users here are gay, but I'd just be giving the gaybashers a chance to rear their ugly heads (and probably get banned for it)
I would ask if any users here are gay, but I'd just be giving the gaybashers a chance to rear their ugly heads (and probably get banned for it
)
I think most homo-/bisexual people are too used to that kind of gaybashing. Personally, I don't even consider the word gay (as in: He's so gay!), to mean anything more like e.g. a man who's acting exaggerated feminine.
I still find it weird how people consider someone's sexuality to be of any importance at all...unless you want a relationship with them. For example: the referendas about gay-marriage in the US. Shouldn't it be up to each couple to decide to get married or not?
I still find it weird how people consider someone's sexuality to be of any importance at all...unless you want a relationship with them. For example: the referendas about gay-marriage in the US. Shouldn't it be up to each couple to decide to get married or not?
Exactly.
I guess a lot of people just think it's gross for some reason. But consider that gay people think heterosexual relations are gross, too. (There are certain things it's just not polite to talk about in front of my lesbian cousin, heh.)
No, I don't wanna see gay people kissing and groping each other on the street. But I don't wanna see straight people kissing and groping each other on the street either.
I guess a lot of people just think it's gross for some reason. But consider that gay people think heterosexual relations are gross, too. (There are certain things it's just not polite to talk about in front of my lesbian cousin, heh.)
No, I don't wanna see gay people kissing and groping each other on the street. But I don't wanna see straight people kissing and groping each other on the street either.
It should<0> be, imo, but there are some supremely paranoid people out there. I know an extreme conservative who is convinced that if gay people are allowed to marry, then we'll suddenly have an explosion of polygamy/polyandry, even though we're still defining marriage as between two<0> people. *shrugs*
They're just taking the argument to absurd extremes. Their line of reasoning is "If we can challenge the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman today, tomorrow we'll be challenging the idea that it's between two people."
Personally, I don't see how gay marriage could threaten "normal marriage" any more than it already is. Marriage is already in trouble that has nothing to do with gay people. The trouble with marriage is caused by (a) the wrong people marrying each other, and (b) people getting married for the wrong reasons. Legalizing gay marriage might actually influence people to marry because of love rather than money or something, but only if people can stop being too damn prejudiced to see the truth. That's the real threat to marriage right there...prejudice, hate, and fear. And these, unfortunately, are posessed in higher quantities by straight people.
Personally, I don't see how gay marriage could threaten "normal marriage" any more than it already is. Marriage is already in trouble that has nothing to do with gay people. The trouble with marriage is caused by (a) the wrong people marrying each other, and (b) people getting married for the wrong reasons. Legalizing gay marriage might actually influence people to marry because of love rather than money or something, but only if people can stop being too damn prejudiced to see the truth. That's the real threat to marriage right there...prejudice, hate, and fear. And these, unfortunately, are posessed in higher quantities by straight people.
I don't think the polygamy argument is entirely without base. It is true that allowing homosexuals to marry requires a redefinition of what "marriage" means, historically. If it can be redefined to include same-sex couples, why can't it be redefined to include larger groups? On what basis is the line drawn at that point?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar