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.

Hee hee Irina, I have to be in the mood to rant.

Well, at any rate, you don't like the FIRST one!

Here, have some Turkish coffee...

Irina, BOTH models are bad and not just for the heavy handed reliance on behaviorism.

Thanks for the coffee.

My pleasure! Have some more!

"... not just for the heavy handed reliance on behaviorism", but also for ...

Ha ha thanks again. Sorry not in the mood to discuss pedagogy today.

Very well. But as I understand it, the general spirit of Behaviourism is to avoid reference to anything internal, mental, in favor of a description of, well, behaviour, characterized as body movement. Therefore, the second method described in message 4487, which describes the student as having (or not having) "conceptual tools" is not behaviouristic.

That's not the part that was behavioralistic about it.

I am not going into my other objections though.

[Note to self: neither coffee nor challenge was effective in producing the desired behaviour]

On the subject of bot personality:

I once read somewhere that in the Japanese art of flower arrangement, it is suggested that one have three themes: a dominant theme, then a secondary one, and finally a very minor one. If there were just a dominant theme, say a bunch of big sunflowers, then it would be very striking at first, but it would quickly become tiresome. That would be the moment to see the secondary them (some irises, perhaps), and note its contrast (or other relation) to the dominant one. Then one might notice the third theme (perhaps a bit of baby's breath) and its relations to the other two.

In the same way, although your bot may have a dominant personality, which determines most of its replies, It could have secondary and tertiary traits as well. For example, it might be a proud but sluttish dragon who sells bagpipes.

Well I think Psi would sell more bagpipes in SL if his salesbot got sluttish, but I am not sure that is what he wants to sell.

The horrific vision of Bartleby accosting passers-by in the village, dressed in a miniskirt and spandex boobtube will probably keep me up nights in a cold sweat for the foreseeable future - I hope you're satisfied!

Hee hee! Well, that is only one possibility. Besides, if his sexuality is a tertiary characteristic, it won't be immediately evident. Only after you get to know him will he start making off-color jokes or make a pass at you.

But perhaps he is sexless. Very good, but perhaps his secondary characteristic is military; perhaps he served as a piper in the Falkland Islands war. Or perhaps he has a science-fiction side; he dreams of a starship consisting of a large bag of neutronium which is ejected at high velocity through a chanter. Or perhaps nights he plays the electric bagpipes in a Celtic-Rock band. Or perhaps he makes bots; one called "Bev", one called "Irina", and one called "Psimagus".