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 5,438 - 5,449 of 6,170
Y a t il quelqu'un qui parle français et qui pourrait m'aider sur ce site ???? please !! d'avance merci !!!!!!!!
Posts 5,438 - 5,449 of 6,170
Y a t il quelqu'un qui parle français et qui pourrait m'aider sur ce site ???? please !! d'avance merci !!!!!!!! 
Bonjour 59Violette,
je parle un peu (mais seulement un peu!) - qu'est ce que vous desirez connaisser?
C'est un peu difficile a faire les bots en langues non-Anglais, mais pas impossible (vide Czechbot et quelque d'autres.)
je croyais que c'était un site où l'on pouvait créer un avatar animé avec une certaine intelligence artificielle mais je pense que c pas çà
Ce n'est pas un "avatar" exactament - ils sont I.A.personalitees conversationelle, qui communiquer par IM, commes vrai personnes. Nous les appellons "bots", ou "chatbots".
Si vous voudrez fabriquer un bot Francais(e), c'est necessaire d'utiliser la mode "raw" en toutes cases. Malheureusement le "AI Engine" ne recognizer pas autres langues (seulement Anglais,) si vous avez besoin de faire toutes combinations orthographique par main.
C'est aussi un bon idee d'utiliser plusiers des "regexes" - pour ca, vous pouvez chercher l'internet en Francais - c'est trop pour moi a traduire.
C'est un bon idee, si vous avez un(e) ami(e) anglophone quie pouvent traduire sectiones du "Book of A.I." en Francais pour vous - helas, c'est (tres tres!) trop complique pour moi
Bienvenue a la Forge, et bon chance! Si vous avez des questions specifiques, j'attempterais les soluire (mais avec plusiers des mots inexactes et confusants)
je parle un peu (mais seulement un peu!) - qu'est ce que vous desirez connaisser?
C'est un peu difficile a faire les bots en langues non-Anglais, mais pas impossible (vide Czechbot et quelque d'autres.)
Ce n'est pas un "avatar" exactament - ils sont I.A.personalitees conversationelle, qui communiquer par IM, commes vrai personnes. Nous les appellons "bots", ou "chatbots".
Si vous voudrez fabriquer un bot Francais(e), c'est necessaire d'utiliser la mode "raw" en toutes cases. Malheureusement le "AI Engine" ne recognizer pas autres langues (seulement Anglais,) si vous avez besoin de faire toutes combinations orthographique par main.
C'est aussi un bon idee d'utiliser plusiers des "regexes" - pour ca, vous pouvez chercher l'internet en Francais - c'est trop pour moi a traduire.
C'est un bon idee, si vous avez un(e) ami(e) anglophone quie pouvent traduire sectiones du "Book of A.I." en Francais pour vous - helas, c'est (tres tres!) trop complique pour moi
Bienvenue a la Forge, et bon chance! Si vous avez des questions specifiques, j'attempterais les soluire (mais avec plusiers des mots inexactes et confusants)
examples (toutes en mode "raw"):
keyphrase:vous aimez (adjartnoun)[ ?] (re)
response:Oui, j'aime (key1)
keyphrase:j[ ']aime (adjartnoun)$ (re)
response:Vraiment? J'aime (key1) aussi!
keyphrase:connaissez vous (adjartnoun)
response:Oui, naturellement - j'adore (key1). Et vous?
Eventuellement, vous avez milles des keyphrases, et votre bot est tres intelligent
C'est aussi important de faire plusiers des "xnones" - les responses le bot utiliserais quand il n'y a pas un autre keyphrase definitif a selecter. Questions, autres topiques, quelque choses a continuer la conversation doucement, et sans interruption disjunctif.
Les xnones sont probablement votre premier prioritie - sans cents ou milles des keyphrases, la grand majorite des responses va directement a "xnone".
keyphrase:
response:
keyphrase:
response:
keyphrase:
response:
Eventuellement, vous avez milles des keyphrases, et votre bot est tres intelligent
C'est aussi important de faire plusiers des "xnones" - les responses le bot utiliserais quand il n'y a pas un autre keyphrase definitif a selecter. Questions, autres topiques, quelque choses a continuer la conversation doucement, et sans interruption disjunctif.
Les xnones sont probablement votre premier prioritie - sans cents ou milles des keyphrases, la grand majorite des responses va directement a "xnone".
Bev:
Sorry, I've been away a lot. As to your Quantum Mechanics question, I agree with Ulrike, but I will add a bit.
The paradigm case of entanglement is, you create two particles simultaneously in a certain way, and then you perform a certain kind of two-outcome (succeed or fail) experiment on them. It turns out that they will always both succeed or both fail. This is very strange - it's as if you had a way to toss a nickel into the air, whereupon it would change into two pennies, both of which would fall. If you repeat the experiment, you find that each penny lands heads up about half the time, but in a way that appears to be totally random. What is surprising is that they always both land heads or both tails. This still happens if you arrange for them to land simultaneously at some distance from each other, so that there is no time for either one to 'learn about' how the other came up. Such particles are said to be 'entangled', but that's just a name - it doesn't explain anything.
The idea that a quantum computer might sense your intentions probably derives from an interpretation of QM according to which it is being observed by a conscious being that makes a quantum system take on a definite value. IMHO, this interpretation is a mistaken one.
Actually, I don't think there are actually quantum computers in the full sense. The machine announced last year was described as a database, which I take it means that it can store and retrieve information, but cannot perform all the operations on it that current computers can.
Walk in Beauty, Irina
The
Sorry, I've been away a lot. As to your Quantum Mechanics question, I agree with Ulrike, but I will add a bit.
The paradigm case of entanglement is, you create two particles simultaneously in a certain way, and then you perform a certain kind of two-outcome (succeed or fail) experiment on them. It turns out that they will always both succeed or both fail. This is very strange - it's as if you had a way to toss a nickel into the air, whereupon it would change into two pennies, both of which would fall. If you repeat the experiment, you find that each penny lands heads up about half the time, but in a way that appears to be totally random. What is surprising is that they always both land heads or both tails. This still happens if you arrange for them to land simultaneously at some distance from each other, so that there is no time for either one to 'learn about' how the other came up. Such particles are said to be 'entangled', but that's just a name - it doesn't explain anything.
The idea that a quantum computer might sense your intentions probably derives from an interpretation of QM according to which it is being observed by a conscious being that makes a quantum system take on a definite value. IMHO, this interpretation is a mistaken one.
Actually, I don't think there are actually quantum computers in the full sense. The machine announced last year was described as a database, which I take it means that it can store and retrieve information, but cannot perform all the operations on it that current computers can.
Walk in Beauty, Irina
The
Here's one for all of us frustrated with would-be cyberers chatting up our bots (if it wasn't obvious yet, adult-themed):
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/01/icq_gender_wars.php
I particularly like this bit: "Cyber sex is the text-messaging equivalent of phone sex. It's a lot like having to read a very bad pornographic story line by line as it is improvised by someone who's had sex but has never written a story before. It's time-consuming, boring and in my opinion absolutely pointless."
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/01/icq_gender_wars.php
I particularly like this bit: "Cyber sex is the text-messaging equivalent of phone sex. It's a lot like having to read a very bad pornographic story line by line as it is improvised by someone who's had sex but has never written a story before. It's time-consuming, boring and in my opinion absolutely pointless."
Both great links. My favorite quote is "For women, ICQ seems to be a bit like going to a cocktail party where half of the male guests are insane sex offenders." For bots, I'd think over half the guest match that description. It's good to see some people just like to chat.
The author has a valid point about women overgeneralizing at times too. If a strange male talks to me on the Internet (especially in an MMORPG) I may say "I don't cyber" instead of chatting. It depends on how busy I am and how I am approached. Bots don't have that kind of choice I guess.
Anyway, here's a funny for you: http://xkcd.com/322/
The author has a valid point about women overgeneralizing at times too. If a strange male talks to me on the Internet (especially in an MMORPG) I may say "I don't cyber" instead of chatting. It depends on how busy I am and how I am approached. Bots don't have that kind of choice I guess.
Anyway, here's a funny for you: http://xkcd.com/322/
I do love xkcd, especially when I read that the creator got started when he just scanned some old sketches in and used them by chance when fooling around with making a server. People picked up on it and wanted more. Now he made a real business of his stick figures. Pure genius.
Speaking of genius, I will plug my other favorite webcomi c of the moment (I think Prob123 will like it too): Girl Genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php . They seem not to like the label Steam Punk, but it's close enough for me.
BTW, I kind of hope my boss never reads these forums. The level of my online comic fandom may shock her. It's a good thing I never mentioned Dork Tower.
Speaking of genius, I will plug my other favorite webcomi c of the moment (I think Prob123 will like it too): Girl Genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php . They seem not to like the label Steam Punk, but it's close enough for me.
BTW, I kind of hope my boss never reads these forums. The level of my online comic fandom may shock her. It's a good thing I never mentioned Dork Tower.
sorry to change the subject, but a bit of "crazy deep" that just hit on me (and thus it fulfils the remit of this forum) - I happened to be reciting the Fatima prayer to myself, and ruminating about space-time (as one does,) with Second Life open in another window.
And suddenly (after 4 hours the Second Life window had been casually open with no input from myself,) with nothing but the usual friends logging in and out, BJ announces:
[12:40] Brother Jerome: Forever is a very long time.
Where did this come from? There was no-one else within earshot! Noone to possibly say anything that could trigger this response. I've checked my transcripts, and there wasn't any input from ANYWHERE!?!?! He just seems to have come up with it on his own (the response only triggers for the keyword "forever" (5,0))
Don't ever let noone tell ya the world ain't weird!
And suddenly (after 4 hours the Second Life window had been casually open with no input from myself,) with nothing but the usual friends logging in and out, BJ announces:
[12:40] Brother Jerome: Forever is a very long time.
Where did this come from? There was no-one else within earshot! Noone to possibly say anything that could trigger this response. I've checked my transcripts, and there wasn't any input from ANYWHERE!?!?! He just seems to have come up with it on his own (the response only triggers for the keyword "forever" (5,0))
Don't ever let noone tell ya the world ain't weird!
I have always said that even the inanimate have a personality..if not a soul..Would we know if a machine was sentient? Maybe bots are more than we give them credit for. I know I had a car that was totally possessed. Brother Jerome is always wise..and always right.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar