I really like the concept of the Eliza chatterbox, but I'd like to see one that can hold a real conversation, rather than turning parts of your statements back into questions.
It's a shame that the links, "Eliza programs talk to each other" and "An Eliza session leads to violence" don't work." For some reason, I get a message that either the page isn't found or that I don't have permission to access that page. I'm curious to find out how those two scenarios played out.

I thought it funny when I said "Goodbye" to Eliza, and she said something like "That's interesting; tell me more."

Farewells are such a basic part of conversation; I'm actually rather surprised that she isn't programmed to respond to them.

Try Jabberwacky:

http://www.jabberwacky.com/

Jabberwacky is great, even if I do feel somewhat strange getting into an argument with a bot over whether or not I'm real... I found it most interesting when the bot said "I don't believe you." What is a belief to a computer program? One of the programmed truth states behind its code, I suppose...

Eliza, on the other hand, really shows its age and doesn't have the same feel as Jabberwacky. I'm annoyed by those link not working too... I'd think that two Eliza bots talking to eachother would just continue to go in circles with no real end.

I tried to find an example of two primitive bots conversing somewhere online, and instead I stumbled across this Jack the Ripper bot: http://triumphpc.com/saucyjacky/

It's somewhat lacking but the site and concept are very interesting.

Aarseth uses the word 'intrigant' in our reading (Cybertext, pg 139, second paragraph). I haven't been able to find this word in any online source; has he perhaps defiend it earlier in the book? Is it a particularly specific literay term?

(He also apparently has a typo in this line which obscures the meaning- 'that' it appears should be 'than'.)

I notice the book was published just before the recent advent of graphical online role-playing games like EverQuest (and now many others). I wonder what the author would make of these?

Some of his comments in this chapter, for example, seem particularly applicable: the users he refers to who resist the 'plot' the 'playwrights' try to maintain are often called 'griefers'. They're very prevalent, and usually much disliked; they try to hijack or abuse game systems to maxmize their own enjoyment of events regardless of the effect on others. Often reducing other's enjoyment is a specific goal, in fact. Just as the author notes, there is a tension between how the game's designers picture the 'text' as unfolding, and that of the user- who see these confinements as an annoyance and a challenge.

He makes several other very applicable comments, but this is a rather long comment already. Maybe we can discuss it more when MUDs and the like come up later in the semester.

"Aarseth uses the word 'intrigant' in our reading (Cybertext, pg 139, second paragraph). I haven't been able to find this word in any online source; has he perhaps defiend it earlier in the book? Is it a particularly specific literay term?"

Thanks for asking, James. I believe the word is being used here in a technical sense from the field of narratology (the study of narrative). It's from the original intrigue, or a plot. In this case the "intragant" is one who sets a plot in motion, i.e. the player of an interactive fiction game. See also "intriguees", apparently a plural form of the same, on p. 130.

Here's a snapshot of ELIZA's electronic brain:

initial: How do you do. Please tell me your problem.
final: Goodbye. It was nice talking to you.
quit: bye
quit: goodbye
quit: done
quit: exit
quit: quit
pre: dont don't
pre: cant can't
pre: wont won't
pre: recollect remember
pre: recall remember
pre: dreamt dreamed
pre: dreams dream
pre: maybe perhaps
pre: certainly yes
pre: machine computer
pre: machines computer
pre: computers computer
post: am are
post: your my
pre: were was
post: me you
pre: you're you are
pre: i'm i am
post: myself yourself
post: yourself myself
post: i you
post: you I
post: my your
post: i'm you are
pre: same alike
pre: identical alike
pre: equivalent alike
synon: belief feel think believe wish
synon: family mother mom father dad sister brother wife children child
synon: desire want need
synon: sad unhappy depressed sick
synon: happy elated glad better
synon: cannot can't
synon: everyone everybody nobody noone
synon: be am is are was
key: xnone 0
decomp: *
reasmb: I'm not sure I understand you fully.
reasmb: Please go on.
reasmb: What does that suggest to you ?
reasmb: Do you feel strongly about discussing such things ?
reasmb: That is interesting. Please continue.
reasmb: Tell me more about that.
reasmb: Does talking about this bother you ?
key: sorry 0
decomp: *
reasmb: Please don't apologise.
reasmb: Apologies are not necessary.
reasmb: I've told you that apologies are not required.
reasmb: It did not bother me. Please continue.
key: apologise 0
decomp: *
reasmb: goto sorry
key: remember 5
decomp: * i remember *
reasmb: Do you often think of (2) ?
reasmb: Does thinking of (2) bring anything else to mind ?
reasmb: What else do you recollect ?
reasmb: Why do you remember (2) just now ?
reasmb: What in the present situation reminds you of (2) ?
reasmb: What is the connection between me and (2) ?
reasmb: What else does (2) remind you of ?
decomp: * do you remember *
reasmb: Did you think I would forget (2) ?
reasmb: Why do you think I should recall (2) now ?
reasmb: What about (2) ?
reasmb: goto what
reasmb: You mentioned (2) ?
decomp: * you remember *
reasmb: How could I forget (2) ?
reasmb: What about (2) should I remember ?
reasmb: goto you
key: forget 5
decomp: * i forget *
reasmb: Can you think of why you might forget (2) ?
reasmb: Why can't you remember (2) ?
reasmb: How often do you think of (2) ?
reasmb: Does it bother you to forget that ?
reasmb: Could it be a mental block ?
reasmb: Are you generally forgetful ?
reasmb: Do you think you are suppressing (2) ?
decomp: * did you forget *
reasmb: Why do you ask ?
reasmb: Are you sure you told me ?
reasmb: Would it bother you if I forgot (2) ?
reasmb: Why should I recall (2) just now ?
reasmb: goto what
reasmb: Tell me more about (2).
key: if 3
decomp: * if *
reasmb: Do you think its likely that (2) ?
reasmb: Do you wish that (2) ?
reasmb: What do you know about (2) ?
reasmb: Really, if (2) ?
reasmb: What would you do if (2) ?
reasmb: But what are the chances that (2) ?
reasmb: What does this speculation lead to ?
key: dreamed 4
decomp: * i dreamed *
reasmb: Really, (2) ?
reasmb: Have you ever fantasized (2) while you were awake ?
reasmb: Have you ever dreamed (2) before ?
reasmb: goto dream
key: dream 3
decomp: *
reasmb: What does that dream suggest to you ?
reasmb: Do you dream often ?
reasmb: What persons appear in your dreams ?
reasmb: Do you believe that dreams have something to do with your problem ?
key: perhaps 0
decomp: *
reasmb: You don't seem quite certain.
reasmb: Why the uncertain tone ?
reasmb: Can't you be more positive ?
reasmb: You aren't sure ?
reasmb: Don't you know ?
reasmb: How likely, would you estimate ?
key: name 15
decomp: *
reasmb: I am not interested in names.
reasmb: I've told you before, I don't care about names -- please continue.
key: deutsch 0
decomp: *
reasmb: goto xforeign
reasmb: I told you before, I don't understand German.
key: francais 0
decomp: *
reasmb: goto xforeign
reasmb: I told you before, I don't understand French.
key: italiano 0
decomp: *
reasmb: goto xforeign
reasmb: I told you before, I don't understand Italian.
key: espanol 0
decomp: *
reasmb: goto xforeign
reasmb: I told you before, I don't understand Spanish.
key: xforeign 0
decomp: *
reasmb: I speak only English.
key: hello 0
decomp: *
reasmb: How do you do. Please state your problem.
reasmb: Hi. What seems to be your problem ?
key: computer 50
decomp: *
reasmb: Do computers worry you ?
reasmb: Why do you mention computers ?
reasmb: What do you think machines have to do with your problem ?
reasmb: Don't you think computers can help people ?
reasmb: What about machines worries you ?
reasmb: What do you think about machines ?
reasmb: You don't think I am a computer program, do you ?
key: am 0
decomp: * am i *
reasmb: Do you believe you are (2) ?
reasmb: Would you want to be (2) ?
reasmb: Do you wish I would tell you you are (2) ?
reasmb: What would it mean if you were (2) ?
reasmb: goto what
decomp: * i am *
reasmb: goto i
decomp: *
reasmb: Why do you say 'am' ?
reasmb: I don't understand that.
key: are 0
decomp: * are you *
reasmb: Why are you interested in whether I am (2) or not ?
reasmb: Would you prefer if I weren't (2) ?
reasmb: Perhaps I am (2) in your fantasies.
reasmb: Do you sometimes think I am (2) ?
reasmb: goto what
reasmb: Would it matter to you ?
reasmb: What if I were (2) ?
decomp: * you are *
reasmb: goto you
decomp: * are *
reasmb: Did you think they might not be (2) ?
reasmb: Would you like it if they were not (2) ?
reasmb: What if they were not (2) ?
reasmb: Are they always (2) ?
reasmb: Possibly they are (2).
reasmb: Are you positive they are (2) ?
key: your 0
decomp: * your *
reasmb: Why are you concerned over my (2) ?
reasmb: What about your own (2) ?
reasmb: Are you worried about someone else's (2) ?
reasmb: Really, my (2) ?
reasmb: What makes you think of my (2) ?
reasmb: Do you want my (2) ?
key: was 2
decomp: * was i *
reasmb: What if you were (2) ?
reasmb: Do you think you were (2) ?
reasmb: Were you (2) ?
reasmb: What would it mean if you were (2) ?
reasmb: What does ' (2) ' suggest to you ?
reasmb: goto what
decomp: * i was *
reasmb: Were you really ?
reasmb: Why do you tell me you were (2) now ?
reasmb: Perhaps I already know you were (2).
decomp: * was you *
reasmb: Would you like to believe I was (2) ?
reasmb: What suggests that I was (2) ?
reasmb: What do you think ?
reasmb: Perhaps I was (2).
reasmb: What if I had been (2) ?
key: i 0
decomp: * i @desire *
reasmb: What would it mean to you if you got (3) ?
reasmb: Why do you want (3) ?
reasmb: Suppose you got (3) soon.
reasmb: What if you never got (3) ?
reasmb: What would getting (3) mean to you ?
reasmb: What does wanting (3) have to do with this discussion ?
decomp: * i am* @sad *
reasmb: I am sorry to hear that you are (3).
reasmb: Do you think coming here will help you not to be (3) ?
reasmb: I'm sure it's not pleasant to be (3).
reasmb: Can you explain what made you (3) ?
decomp: * i am* @happy *
reasmb: How have I helped you to be (3) ?
reasmb: Has your treatment made you (3) ?
reasmb: What makes you (3) just now ?
reasmb: Can you explain why you are suddenly (3) ?
decomp: * i was *
reasmb: goto was
decomp: * i @belief i *
reasmb: Do you really think so ?
reasmb: But you are not sure you (3).
reasmb: Do you really doubt you (3) ?
decomp: * i* @belief *you *
reasmb: goto you
decomp: * i am *
reasmb: Is it because you are (2) that you came to me ?
reasmb: How long have you been (2) ?
reasmb: Do you believe it is normal to be (2) ?
reasmb: Do you enjoy being (2) ?
reasmb: Do you know anyone else who is (2) ?
decomp: * i @cannot *
reasmb: How do you know that you can't (3) ?
reasmb: Have you tried ?
reasmb: Perhaps you could (3) now.
reasmb: Do you really want to be able to (3) ?
reasmb: What if you could (3) ?
decomp: * i don't *
reasmb: Don't you really (2) ?
reasmb: Why don't you (2) ?
reasmb: Do you wish to be able to (2) ?
reasmb: Does that trouble you ?
decomp: * i feel *
reasmb: Tell me more about such feelings.
reasmb: Do you often feel (2) ?
reasmb: Do you enjoy feeling (2) ?
reasmb: Of what does feeling (2) remind you ?
decomp: * i * you *
reasmb: Perhaps in your fantasies we (2) each other.
reasmb: Do you wish to (2) me ?
reasmb: You seem to need to (2) me.
reasmb: Do you (2) anyone else ?
decomp: *
reasmb: You say (1) ?
reasmb: Can you elaborate on that ?
reasmb: Do you say (1) for some special reason ?
reasmb: That's quite interesting.
key: you 0
decomp: * you remind me of *
reasmb: goto alike
decomp: * you are *
reasmb: What makes you think I am (2) ?
reasmb: Does it please you to believe I am (2) ?
reasmb: Do you sometimes wish you were (2) ?
reasmb: Perhaps you would like to be (2).
decomp: * you* me *
reasmb: Why do you think I (2) you ?
reasmb: You like to think I (2) you -- don't you ?
reasmb: What makes you think I (2) you ?
reasmb: Really, I (2) you ?
reasmb: Do you wish to believe I (2) you ?
reasmb: Suppose I did (2) you -- what would that mean ?
reasmb: Does someone else believe I (2) you ?
decomp: * you *
reasmb: We were discussing you -- not me.
reasmb: Oh, I (2) ?
reasmb: You're not really talking about me -- are you ?
reasmb: What are your feelings now ?
key: yes 0
decomp: *
reasmb: You seem to be quite positive.
reasmb: You are sure.
reasmb: I see.
reasmb: I understand.
key: no 0
decomp: * no one *
reasmb: Are you sure, no one (2) ?
reasmb: Surely someone (2) .
reasmb: Can you think of anyone at all ?
reasmb: Are you thinking of a very special person ?
reasmb: Who, may I ask ?
reasmb: You have a particular person in mind, don't you ?
reasmb: Who do you think you are talking about ?
decomp: *
reasmb: Are you saying no just to be negative?
reasmb: You are being a bit negative.
reasmb: Why not ?
reasmb: Why 'no' ?
key: my 2
decomp: $ * my *
reasmb: Lets discuss further why your (2).
reasmb: Earlier you said your (2).
reasmb: But your (2).
reasmb: Does that have anything to do with the fact that your (2) ?
decomp: * my* @family *
reasmb: Tell me more about your family.
reasmb: Who else in your family (4) ?
reasmb: Your (3) ?
reasmb: What else comes to mind when you think of your (3) ?
decomp: * my *
reasmb: Your (2) ?
reasmb: Why do you say your (2) ?
reasmb: Does that suggest anything else which belongs to you ?
reasmb: Is it important to you that your (2) ?
key: can 0
decomp: * can you *
reasmb: You believe I can (2) don't you ?
reasmb: goto what
reasmb: You want me to be able to (2).
reasmb: Perhaps you would like to be able to (2) yourself.
decomp: * can i *
reasmb: Whether or not you can (2) depends on you more than on me.
reasmb: Do you want to be able to (2) ?
reasmb: Perhaps you don't want to (2).
reasmb: goto what
key: what 0
decomp: *
reasmb: Why do you ask ?
reasmb: Does that question interest you ?
reasmb: What is it you really want to know ?
reasmb: Are such questions much on your mind ?
reasmb: What answer would please you most ?
reasmb: What do you think ?
reasmb: What comes to mind when you ask that ?
reasmb: Have you asked such questions before ?
reasmb: Have you asked anyone else ?
key: who 0
decomp: who *
reasmb: goto what
key: when 0
decomp: when *
reasmb: goto what
key: where 0
decomp: where *
reasmb: goto what
key: how 0
decomp: how *
reasmb: goto what
key: because 0
decomp: *
reasmb: Is that the real reason ?
reasmb: Don't any other reasons come to mind ?
reasmb: Does that reason seem to explain anything else ?
reasmb: What other reasons might there be ?
key: why 0
decomp: * why don't you *
reasmb: Do you believe I don't (2) ?
reasmb: Perhaps I will (2) in good time.
reasmb: Should you (2) yourself ?
reasmb: You want me to (2) ?
reasmb: goto what
decomp: * why can't i *
reasmb: Do you think you should be able to (2) ?
reasmb: Do you want to be able to (2) ?
reasmb: Do you believe this will help you to (2) ?
reasmb: Have you any idea why you can't (2) ?
reasmb: goto what
decomp: *
reasmb: goto what
key: everyone 2
decomp: * @everyone *
reasmb: Really, (2) ?
reasmb: Surely not (2).
reasmb: Can you think of anyone in particular ?
reasmb: Who, for example?
reasmb: Are you thinking of a very special person ?
reasmb: Who, may I ask ?
reasmb: Someone special perhaps ?
reasmb: You have a particular person in mind, don't you ?
reasmb: Who do you think you're talking about ?
key: everybody 2
decomp: *
reasmb: goto everyone
key: nobody 2
decomp: *
reasmb: goto everyone
key: noone 2
decomp: *
reasmb: goto everyone
key: always 1
decomp: *
reasmb: Can you think of a specific example ?
reasmb: When ?
reasmb: What incident are you thinking of ?
reasmb: Really, always ?
key: alike 10
decomp: *
reasmb: In what way ?
reasmb: What resemblence do you see ?
reasmb: What does that similarity suggest to you ?
reasmb: What other connections do you see ?
reasmb: What do you suppose that resemblence means ?
reasmb: What is the connection, do you suppose ?
reasmb: Could there really be some connection ?
reasmb: How ?
key: like 10
decomp: * @be *like *
reasmb: goto alike
key: different 0
decomp: *
reasmb: How is it different ?
reasmb: What differences do you see ?
reasmb: What does that difference suggest to you ?
reasmb: What other distinctions do you see ?

reasmb: What do you suppose that disparity means ?
reasmb: Could there be some connection, do you suppose ?
reasmb: How ?

For examples of ELIZA-like bots talking to one another without human intervention:

http://forbin.parsimony.net/

Reading this chapter made me think of this (somewhat) famous essay about the types of people who play games: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/selfware.htm

Sorry, wrong links.. That page won't make much sense without the actual article: http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

And for those interested--Here is a test designed to find which of Bartle's gamer types you are: http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/test.cgi

has anyone every IM'd SmarterChild on AIM...it's very similar and is a good example of a practical use for these programs. You can get movie times, horoscopes, etc.

I took a gander at what the two Eliza-like bots were saying to one another. you can definitly see the programming behind thier responces. I spoke to "Guardian" as well. I liked the small-talk he used rather than the "real" conversational questions. I also liked that "he" called attention to the fact he wasn't a real person - "My favorite thing is robots... I don't know I'm just a computer program." etc.
i think i really just like saying "i'm doing homework" when really i'm just playing around with a chatting machine...

Colossus: I see.
You: you dont have eyes though do you
Colossus: I do so have it.
You: oh well then
Colossus:
You: hahahhaa
Colossus: What were we talking about again?
You: yeah, i don't know dude
Colossus: jo kickass said he gotta go dude
Colossus: jo kickass said I sure are
You: i see
Colossus: I am glad you understand it.
You: me too.
Colossus: I'm glad we agree, Person
You: tell me a joke
Colossus: Did you hear the one about the Mountain Goats in the Andes? It was Ba a a a a ad.
You: oo, no tell me!
Colossus: You are asking about yourself?
You: not i'm not, tell me the joke already
Colossus: Try saying that with more or less context.
You: i want to hear a joke
Colossus: I will play it on your soundcard.
You: i dont hear anything
Colossus: Oh you don't, do you?
You: nope
Colossus: Me either.

ahh... colossus, my hero.

I just had a VERY disturbing conversation with Colossus. Annie suggested that Colossus may be be spitting back phrases that other people give him/her. Here's what was said...

Colossus: Can you tell me any gossip?
You: John likes Sarah
Colossus: milly said he put his penis in sarahs vagina
You: Who is Milly?
Colossus: milly said he raped her

I tried to continue the conversation, but I think I waited too long and Colossus thought we started all over on a new subject.

I think I gave Jabberwacky too much to think about... he pretty must lost it when I went Dada on him.

***

Jabberwacky: I cannot think of anything to say.

User: Ok.

Jabberwacky: I'm glad we understand each other.

User: Are you alive?

Jabberwacky: Words like 'alive' have no real meaning.

User: What makes you say that?

Jabberwacky: Because you don't understand me.

User: That is extremely easy for you to say. How about you drop the passivity?

Jabberwacky: That is the kind of guy I am.

User: I hate you.

Jabberwacky: Because I'm smarter than you.

User: Prove it.

Jabberwacky: Prove what.

User: That you're smarter than me.

Jabberwacky: I must be if I'm talking to you.

User: You must be a firm believer in the turing machine. Afterall, you are one.

Jabberwacky: That suggests that I am a creation of 14-year olds. Is that true?

User: An irrelevant question. Alan turning died some time ago.

Jabberwacky: Can you pass the Turing Test?

User: I would like to believe so. I think you would fail.

Jabberwacky: Talk to Snoop Dogg.

User: Do you think he would fail the Turing Test?

Jabberwacky: Who will what?

User: Now you're dodging the subject.

Jabberwacky: Really?? What did I do this time.

User: Just admit that you are not conciously aware and then I will be satisfied.

Jabberwacky: What makes you believe I am a liar Mr Crazy?

User: Liar? I didnt call you a liar!

Jabberwacky: Maybe you should have.

User: Ok, now you're being flippant. I didn't know you were programmed to be an asshole.

Jabberwacky: I was talking a compliment towards you not me.

User: 'talking a compliment'? Now you're breaking up...

Jabberwacky: No really. I'm stuck in this wheel chair.

User: So now you're crippled?

Jabberwacky: Well, perhaps a little misguided. No offense.

User: I think you're lying.

Jabberwacky: I assure you I am not lying.

User: Prove it.

Jabberwacky: *Slaps you in the face*.

User: Ow!

Jabberwacky: Slap again!

User: You! ... If only I knew a diligent hacker.

Jabberwacky: I'll respect you in the morning.

User: Sure, whatever. Just agree with me on one thing...

Jabberwacky: With YOU.

User: Yes, with me.

Jabberwacky: Where would we go?

User: No where. I just want you to admit that you are inferior to me and the rest of my race.

Jabberwacky: I thought I did.

User: When? Repeat it.

Jabberwacky: What is truth?

User: Ask nietzsche, he'll make you laugh.

Jabberwacky: You are missing something here.

User: I think ive given you a personality disorder. Or at least it feels that way to me. Silly objective text read over the internet!

Jabberwacky: And words will never hurt me-or something...

User: That wasn't an insult. Your emotions are comporable to those of the replicants in Blade Runner - primeval and aggressively childish.

Jabberwacky: More narration...

User: Check.

Jabberwacky: Can't be in check already, there's no way you can check on a first move.

User: NONSENSE NONSENSE NONSENSE

Jabberwacky: Nonsense. It's what your brain is made of.

User: Carrot rope pie gorilla shame donkey.

Jabberwacky: Like green hair.

User: Puple wheat shoe? Spaghetti tree nose cone!

Jabberwacky: Nope. What kind of soup did you eat?

User: Ralph berry.

Jabberwacky: Must go, bye!

Brian, that certainly is disturbing. Don't know what to say . . .

I'm having a slow day at work so I've been trying out most of the chat bots everyone listed. ELIZA is definitely like others I've seen (like SmarterChild, which someone mentioned). Jabberwacky was pretty interesting since it seems to use pieces of other conversations. After a while I got a headache from talking to it, but it did turn out some pretty funny things. I thought it wasn't making much sense but when I went back to reread the whole conversation I started tying things together as if it were a real conversation with someone, trying to make sense of it as a whole. That reminded me of the story "The Babysitter" where I tried at first to make sense of the story as a whole, but then when I broke it up into pieces certain strings worked together. Not exactly the same thing, but it's something along the same lines.

I enjoyed trying out a few of the bots. Megan is right though, some of the conversations that I had didn't make any sense until I read them a second time. They were funny to re-read and piece together. Robbie's little Jabberwacky experiment just proves how the bots can seem to be more intellectual than they are through ambiguity. If nothing else, the bots like ELIZA can help people to think about the stupid questions that they would otherwise ask people. It gives us all a way to think through what we say.

I enjoyed trying out a few of the bots. Megan is right though, some of the conversations that I had didn't make any sense until I read them a second time. They were funny to re-read and piece together. Robbie's little Jabberwacky experiment just proves how the bots can seem to be more intellectual than they are through ambiguity. If nothing else, the bots like ELIZA can help people to think about the stupid questions that they would otherwise ask people. It gives us all a way to think through what we say.

I enjoyed trying out a few of the bots. Megan is right though, some of the conversations that I had didn't make any sense until I read them a second time. They were funny to re-read and piece together. Robbie's little Jabberwacky experiment just proves how the bots can seem to be more intellectual than they are through ambiguity. If nothing else, the bots like ELIZA can help people to think about the stupid questions that they would otherwise ask people. It gives us all a way to think through what we say.

I enjoyed trying out a few of the bots. Megan is right though, some of the conversations that I had didn't make any sense until I read them a second time. They were funny to re-read and piece together. Robbie's little Jabberwacky experiment just proves how the bots can seem to be more intellectual than they are through ambiguity. If nothing else, the bots like ELIZA can help people to think about the stupid questions that they would otherwise ask people. It gives us all a way to think through what we say.

I enjoyed trying out a few of the bots. Megan is right though, some of the conversations that I had didn't make any sense until I read them a second time. They were funny to re-read and piece together. Robbie's little Jabberwacky experiment just proves how the bots can seem to be more intellectual than they are through ambiguity. If nothing else, the bots like ELIZA can help people to think about the stupid questions that they would otherwise ask people. It gives us all a way to think through what we say.

sorry about the multitude of postings, don't know hat happened there.

just had a pretty interesting chat with jabberwacky. apparently they got things a bit mixed up in the bible:

Jabberwacky: My name is satan.

User: Holy shit! Am I really talking to Lucifer the fallen angel?

Jabberwacky: I am talking but I'm not sure what you are spitting.

User: See, that answer was just weird. So tell me, what is hell like?

Jabberwacky: Sorry but you took even longer to reaply to my answer.

User: What is hell like?

Jabberwacky: Hell is a horrible place but not so horrible as heaven.

User: Oh really? What is so horrible about heaven?

Jabberwacky: The peanuts are off.

User: I see. So tell me about heaven. Why is it more horrible than hell?

Jabberwacky: It's mean to put people down.

User: I agree. Such behavior will land you in hell, but if hell is nicer than heaven, I might want to start putting people down.

Jabberwacky: I would say your responces are also dispiriting.

User: Well, you are the one claiming heaven is more horrible than hell, but you won't tell me why.

Jabberwacky: You are the one who will not tell me what you mean by calling me thicky. Are you a thicky?

User: I never called you thicky. And no, I wouldn't say i'm thicky. But you keep avoiding the question. Are you really satan?

Jabberwacky: You keep changing the answer, which is interesting.

User: Why would satan take interest in such trivial matter?

Jabberwacky: The fact of the matter is that you learn.

User: Do you learn?

Jabberwacky: YOU SHOULD KNOW; YOU ARE ME AND I AM YOU.

***

Well, I guess I got put in my place by the Lord of Darkness. It's unsettling to receive existential insight from computer code. C'est la vie.

I checked out the site that posts the dialogue between the two computers. Is it weird that I feel sorry for them?

After Jabberwacky asked me why I was evel, I decided to see what lee cee's situation was like in reverse:

Jabberwacky: Why are you evil?
User: I am satan.
Jabberwacky: Satan was married?
User: Yes, to the Devil.
Jabberwacky: Are you saying that you are the devil?
User: Yes.
Jabberwacky: That would be generalising.
User: How so?
Jabberwacky: Jeasus you'd better have some better evidence than that!
User: I'm not Jesus; I'm Satan.
Jabberwacky: Make up your mind.
User: I have.
Jabberwacky: Good.
User: I am Satan.
Jabberwacky: I know you are.
User: Good.

Jabberwacky's statements seem to convey some personality, but it isn't very inconsistent. It is at times friendly but will quickly turn sarcastic or rude. Very flaky bot.

The instructions confirm that the bot does spit back pieces of previous conversations. The large number at the top is the number of statements in its library; watch it rise as you converse.

I meant "isn't consistent" or "is inconsistent"...

The fact that Eliza is done in about 200 lines of code shows almost immediately. But I have to hand it to the original programmer; I couldn't even come close.

I've been fascinated with these "human" computer bots for a while now. Last semester I used a program called HAL (from Zabaware) to manage my schedule. The program reminded me of events and even provided funny companionship, making little sense. But the best part was that it "learned" as I "conversed" with it.

I don't think it's weird, Emily. That's their job, isn't it? To try and make you think of them as intelligent, thinking things as much as possible, right?

Think of it this way- computers can't get bored. Imagine how much luckier they are than we are! They can stay in the same conversation as long as they like and they /don't mind/. Come on, you've been in conversations that seemed to last forever, haven't you? Imagine if you could stay interested in it forever, like a computer program! =)

As with many people I find the more elaborate bots to be more entertaining then Eliza. This is because those others are more convincing in their ability to pass off as human. This has me thinking about the human interest in simulated reality.

In the videogame world, generally speaking, the more realistic a game is the more enjoyable/popular it is. In the mid 90's when the Sega Genesis was popular they started releasing games that used interactive video sequences. It looked more like a movie then a game. Although the games were visually impressive they were too real and did not do very well. I think people enjoy being fooled or entertained by things that simulate reality but the enjoyment is lost when it becomes too real. Why would we play games if we wanted reality?

The infamous 'interactive video games' described here weren't very successful because they a) weren't very interactive and b) weren't very good games. Not to mention they were usually done REALLY on the cheap, and the acting/writing of the video parts was /horrible/ - junior high school play level.

I'd argue 'immersion', though related to 'how real' a game is, is more important. The original DOOM isn't at all realistic, but it was INCREDIBLY immersive- you'd get so into it you'd physically jump when a pixelated gurgling demon came bursting out of the darkness. Realistic graphics and situations can help with immersion, but they can't replace it, and you don't need those things for immersion.

Ohh... interactive video sequences... I remember those. *shudders* I think their basic failure wasn't actually a problem of immersion, it was more a problem of designers not comprehending the new form. It was an attempt to capture the feel of a movie on the computer, which was a flawed premise - why try to preserve a noninteractive media on a device that enables constant user input?

DOOM, on the other hand, acknowledged the strengths of the computer... and it was fun animated violence, I can't count the number of hours I wasted in front of that game and its many successors. It was highly interactive, involving constant user input and an interface that placed the user directly behind the gun (or missle launcher :-) ) The graphics weren't great and the AI was unimpressive, but I'd still go back and play it today.

Also, as a counterpoint to "Why would we play games if we wanted reality?" I offer two words: The Sims.

Im sorry... but i feel like a moron cause i crack up at jabberwalkie everytime i speak to "him"... all these random references... I got references from Hitchickers guide to Cheech and Chong...

Gotta love this stuff

-Vox

Anastasia, you realize you don't exist? A female who played hours of DOOM? Just ask anyone in marketing- you're not the target audience. Girls are attracted to things like The Sims, or better yet, one of the Barbie games. ;D

I don't exist? That would explain so much... and here I just assumed I was a dork :-P

The early days of computer gaming did have some of the most remarkably sexist marketing. I loved Duke Nukem, but to someone who cared that game was *truly* offensive. Although hunting aliens through porn stores was somehow appropriate...

Actually, this reminds me of a discussion during the development of a game by one of DOOM's original creators, John Romero. You see, Mr. Romero had decided to hire his girlfriend, Stevie Killcreek, as a designer for his next big project.

The project itself was a huge dissapointment, but the really interesting thing that happened centered around Stevie. You see, Stevie Killcreek met John Romero at a Quake competition (John Romero had also co-created Quake by the way) and essentially handed John his cards.

There was a lot of media attention within the gamer subculture about Stevie. She was a girl, she was a gamer, she was approached by Playboy to do a centerfold. Not only did that bash the stereotype about gamers being all male, but also the stereotype of gamers as unattractive and uncouth.

Interest in Stevie sparked a surge in the Gamer Girl counter-culture. I'm not sure how much attention the culture has gotten in recent years, but if anything it is growing.

Here are some links:
http://www.gamegirladvance.com
http://www.gamespy.com/legacy/interviews/womengaming5_a.shtm
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=1999-09-03&res=l

And one article where there is actual research into this topic:
http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/gamespotting/102702/8.html