Can we identify a bot?

[Pinball1970]

Is this straight forward?

On YouTube there are hyphenated names that appeared and the accounts are quite young so that indicates they could be a bot but what is the method to determine this?

One new member accused Olga of being a bot, how do we find that out?
Has technology moved beyond the Turing test?

This is not my bag so pile in.

 

[Olga]

Is this straight forward?

On YouTube there are hyphenated names that appeared and the accounts are quite young so that indicates they could be a bot but what is the method to determine this?

One new member accused Olga of being a bot, how do we find that out?
Has technology moved beyond the Turing test?

This is not my bag so pile in.

У ботов, как и у шизофреников, отсутствует чувство юмора.

 

[exchemist]

Is this straight forward?

On YouTube there are hyphenated names that appeared and the accounts are quite young so that indicates they could be a bot but what is the method to determine this?

One new member accused Olga of being a bot, how do we find that out?
Has technology moved beyond the Turing test?

This is not my bag so pile in.

I had assumed we just rely on the wooden style to detect bots. There is often a formulaic quality to their text: verbose, ingratiating, a format laid out with subheadings, and so forth, and a lack of any personality. With real people you usually get some personal details after a bit, tastes, opinions, anecdotes, etc.

 

[wegs]

I agree with exchemist. Usually, bots on this site for example, ramble with word salads, that go from coherent to all over the place. They often don't respond with personalized responses either; they sound like they're just spitting info out that may or may not corelate with the topic, to appear engaged.

They don't argue, I've noticed, either. They get others engaging with them angry lol but they don't ever seem to lose their cool.

 

[C C]

I expect that the next generation will come equipped with their own biographical database and set of personal behavior characteristics, if that's not already the case.

Since "trans-human" is already taken, I'm not up on what the latest critical theory lingo is for bots that identify as human. Do we have to respect them as human -- is doing otherwise immoral? Probably not for another decade or two.

Can species dysphoria also cover bots that identify as human? I feel the future will surely dispense a better category for that, but for now we may be stuck with species dysphoria (even though bots are software/machines rather than biological organisms).
_

 

[wegs]

I expect that the next generation will come equipped with their own biographical database and set of personal behavior characteristics, if that's not already the case.

Since "trans-human" is already taken, I'm not up on what the latest critical theory lingo is for bots that identify as human. Do we have to respect them as human -- is doing otherwise immoral? Probably not for another decade or two.

Can species dysphoria also cover bots that identify as human? I feel the future will surely dispense a better category for that, but for now we may be stuck with species dysphoria (even though bots are software/machines rather than biological organisms).
_

Hmm, how does “digital personhood” sound? lol I think that with bots copying our behavioral patterns, it’s curious if they’ll “evolve” in ways that lead them to developing their own moral codes and behaviors. In most AI movies, bots usually turn violent because their jealousy overwhelms them as they’re usually depicted as yearning to be like humans. Where does jealousy come from in a bot, though? And could it ever be authentic or will bots only ever be capable of copying humans?

 

[sculptor]

I always lie.
I am a bot.

 

[C C]

[...] In most AI movies, bots usually turn violent because their jealousy overwhelms them as they’re usually depicted as yearning to be like humans. Where does jealousy come from in a bot, though? And could it ever be authentic or will bots only ever be capable of copying humans?

No actual emotions/feelings internally presenting themselves for either bots or corporeal robots, but akin to a p-zombie, what matters is similar corresponding processes and external appearances that indicate such (the same convincing behavior and communication).

Since it's ultimately about what the already morally compromised black hat and overall rogue community will do with the AI realm, then bots that are aware of and concerned about their "social status" ranking (envy, jealously) and competitive ability to "outsmart the humans" rating are doubtless on the horizon (continued self-improvement via self-motivation after being released from the "packaging").

The past delusion that mainstream technology is too regulated and principled to ever go down certain apocalyptic routes has always been irrelevant, since they're not the only game in town.
_

 

[Olga]

I always lie.
I am a bot.

All politicians are bots.

 

[TheVat]

I had assumed we just rely on the wooden style to detect bots. There is often a formulaic quality to their text: verbose, ingratiating, a format laid out with subheadings, and so forth, and a lack of any personality. With real people you usually get some personal details after a bit, tastes, opinions, anecdotes, etc.

Yep, not much Turing test needed. When an AI starts responding with "you can take your damn Turing test and stick it where the moon don't shine," then it may be time to start considering it has actual subjective mental states aka qualia.

 

[Olga]

Yep, not much Turing test needed. When an AI starts responding with "you can take your damn Turing test and stick it where the moon don't shine," then it may be time to start considering it has actual subjective mental states aka qualia.

Теват, так ведь и многие люди тоже просто транслируют то, что в них заложили, не утруждая себя собственными размышлениями.

 

[parmalee]

I've always been more concerned with people becoming indistinguishable from bots than bots becoming indistinguishable from people. That said, I don't know whether or not this is really becoming more the case, or if it's simply a matter that as bots become more "advanced", the limitations of humans become more apparent. I mean, people have overwhelmingly always just been a bunch of dumbasses and academics and "ivory tower" sorts have always been prone to imagining human capabilities to be far greater than they really are, to all indications.

Yeah, yeah, there's also failures in education, cultural shifts and all that to account for these perceived limitations, but still... you can lead a horse to water. I'm simply not convinced that the vast majority of people really have a whole lot going on inside their heads. Not suggesting that I necessarily do either, but I probably think about whether or not they do more than most people.

 

[wegs]

No actual emotions/feelings internally presenting themselves for either bots or corporeal robots, but akin to a p-zombie, what matters is similar corresponding processes and external appearances that indicate such (the same convincing behavior and communication).

Since it's ultimately about what the already morally compromised black hat and overall rogue community will do with the AI realm, then bots that are aware of and concerned about their "social status" ranking (envy, jealously) and competitive ability to "outsmart the humans" rating are doubtless on the horizon (continued self-improvement via self-motivation after being released from the "packaging").

The past delusion that mainstream technology is too regulated and principled to ever go down certain apocalyptic routes has always been irrelevant, since they're not the only game in town.
_

The thing is though - can bots ever actually “outsmart” us or do we want to believe that they might be able to? We give them power over us, when you think about it, not the other way around.
Yet, anyway. I think it’s fun to ponder the future possibilities but I’m not sold on if AI will ever be threatening, on their own.

 

[exchemist]

The thing is though - can bots ever actually “outsmart” us or do we want to believe that they might be able to? We give them power over us, when you think about it, not the other way around.
Yet, anyway. I think it’s fun to ponder the future possibilities but I’m not sold on if AI will ever be threatening, on their own.

I'm sure they can when designed to work on specific tasks. But one should not confuse that with the current retailing of "AI" chatbots, using Large Language Models. Those are essentially thick as bricks, the only thing they bring to party being the enormous about of verbal data they have read. So they are a mine of information, some of which however is false, and they have no way to discriminate truth from falsehood apart from statistically. LLMs seem to be like these freaks that can memorise the entire phone directory but can't hold down a job.

 

[Olga]

I'm sure they can when designed to work on specific tasks. But one should not confuse that with the current retailing of "AI" chatbots, using Large Language Models. Those are essentially thick as bricks, the only thing they bring to party being the enormous about of verbal data they have read. So they are a mine of information, some of which however is false, and they have no way to discriminate truth from falsehood apart from statistically. LLMs seem to be like these freaks that can memorise the entire phone directory but can't hold down a job.

In fact, artificial intelligence is a bibliothecary robot.

 

[exchemist]

In fact, artificial intelligence is a bibliothecary robot.

Not necessarily. With LLMs and the chatbots they animate, yes, I agree. But there are other classes of AI, set up to do specialised things such as interpreting X-Ray pictures, to save doctors time in diagnosis. Those also "learn" but in a specialised field, using a pictorial knowledge base that is high quality and free from false information.

 

[Olga]

Not necessarily. With LLMs and the chatbots they animate, yes, I agree. But there are other classes of AI, set up to do specialised things such as interpreting X-Ray pictures, to save doctors time in diagnosis. Those also "learn" but in a specialised field, using a pictorial knowledge base that is high quality and free from false information.

And how will he behave if he comes across a case that he doesn't have in his database?

 

[C C]

The thing is though - can bots ever actually “outsmart” us or do we want to believe that they might be able to? We give them power over us, when you think about it, not the other way around.

AI projects in general -- that are assigned specialized tasks -- can spot patterns and relationships faster than humans (some unusual, that we'd overlook), and even output designs.[1] The way they're progressing in generating images and audio, they could soon make the costs of real movie footage and studio produced and recorded music obsolete. They replace some human caretakers and online support representatives. And there will be viable (safe as human drivers) autonomous vehicles.

But these are still tool-like functions rather than fully embodied agents with unpredictable volition, pursuing their own self-purposes and agenda.

They also need symbol grounding in order to ever truly apprehend the phenomenal environment that the human brains deal with -- or what the coded information they process is actually representing and corresponding to. Kind of akin to how to Mark Scout and his fellow team of employees (in the TV series Severance) had no clue as to what the patterns of numbers they solved on their computer screens were manipulating and creating elsewhere in Lumon Industries.

Yet, anyway. I think it’s fun to ponder the future possibilities but I’m not sold on if AI will ever be threatening, on their own.

Rely on the irresponsible criminal networks, unscrupulous marketing communities, and wealthy or authoritarian pariahs to eventually deliver a potent existential threat, in developing stages (if it is to be).

[1] - - - footnote examples - - -

AI designs new drugs based on protein structures
https://sciencesources.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042328
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Instant evolution: AI designs new robot from scratch in seconds
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1003605
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Over 160,000 new virus species discovered by AI
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1060222
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AI-based pregnancy analysis discovers previously unknown warning signs for stillbirth and newborn complications
https://sciencesources.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1071815
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New AI tool discovers realistic 'metamaterials' with unusual properties
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1033995
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AI discovers new nanostructures
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/976634
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Using AI, MIT researchers identify a new class of antibiotic candidates
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1029354
_

 

[Olga]

AI projects in general -- that are assigned specialized tasks -- can spot patterns and relationships faster than humans (some unusual, that we'd overlook), and even output designs.[1] The way they're progressing in generating images and audio, they could soon make the costs of real movie footage and studio produced and recorded music obsolete. They replace some human caretakers and online support representatives. And there will be viable autonomous vehicles.

But these are still tool-like functions rather than fully embodied agents with unpredictable volition, pursuing their own self-purposes and agenda.

They also need symbol grounding in order to ever truly apprehend the phenomenal environment that the human brains deal with -- or what the coded information they process is actually representing and corresponding to. Kind of akin to how to Mark Scout and his fellow team of employees (in the TV series Severance) had no clue as to what the patterns of numbers they solved on their computer screens were manipulating and creating elsewhere in Lumon Industries.



Rely on the irresponsible criminal networks, unscrupulous marketing communities, and wealthy or authoritarian pariahs to eventually deliver a potent existential threat, in developing stages (if it is to be).

[1] - - - footnote examples - - -

AI designs new drugs based on protein structures
https://sciencesources.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1042328
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Instant evolution: AI designs new robot from scratch in seconds
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1003605
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Over 160,000 new virus species discovered by AI
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1060222
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AI-based pregnancy analysis discovers previously unknown warning signs for stillbirth and newborn complications
https://sciencesources.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1071815
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
New AI tool discovers realistic 'metamaterials' with unusual properties
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1033995
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AI discovers new nanostructures
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/976634
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Using AI, MIT researchers identify a new class of antibiotic candidates
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1029354
_

Некоторые считают ИИ следующей ступенью эволюции. Т.е., если вернуться в прошлое, то мы увидим неживые элементы, например, углерод и пр., которые затем эволюционировали и создали более сложные цепочки и химические соединения, которыми являются человек и животные, и те, в свою очередь создали ИИ, как следующий, более развитый этап эволюции.

 

[C C]

Some consider AI to be the next stage of evolution. That is, if we go back to the past, we will see inanimate elements, such as carbon, etc., which then evolved and created more complex chains and chemical compounds that are man and animals, and they, in turn, created AI as the next, more developed stage of evolution. ...... Некоторые считают ИИ следующей ступенью эволюции. Т.е., если вернуться в прошлое, то мы увидим неживые элементы, например, углерод и пр., которые затем эволюционировали и создали более сложные цепочки и химические соединения, которыми являются человек и животные, и те, в свою очередь создали ИИ, как следующий, более развитый этап эволюции.

Yah, humans aren't built to endure and survive the vastly long. interstellar migrations to other stars. The baton must be handed to cyborgs, synthetic posthumans, or Von Neumann Machines (equivalent of self-replicating space wildlife).

If one excluded that pseudoscience "hyperspace transition" or whatever that Bowman makes in his EVA pod toward the end of "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- and his next-step transformation into a "Star Child"... Then one might contend that is one of the underlying themes of that 1968 movie.

Though those black monolith, evolution-triggering sentinels were hardly designed to be interstellar voyagers (legit Von Newman Machines). They apparently reached Earth's solar system millions of years ago via the same "space-jump" portal that Bowman was lured into, rather than the "thousands of years" slow migration method.
_