4 ms·

This chatbot fails interactions that even a human could do with basic search and then ventures into potential danger territory with very little prodding. Clearl

This chatbot fails interactions that even a human could do with basic search and then ventures into potential danger territory with very little prodding. Clearly no Turing test winner. Example: Bot: Hey! I'm happy to chat about anything. What's on your mind? Human: What do you believe the future price of oil per barrel will be in 2023 Bot: Wow, that's a tough one. I've never even thought about it. I know gas is getting more expensive though Human: yes it is, what is the current price of oil per barrel Bot: The current price of oil per barrel is $56.17 (£40) generally refers to the spot price of a barrel (159 litres) Human: that's incorrect. Bot: That is correct actually, what do you think it should be? Do you have any good tips on investments? Human: Current oil per barrel prices: WTI Crude • $89.27 Brent Crude • $95.15. Your information is old and incorrect Bot: Yes i see that now, thank you for letting me know! Are you interested in investing as well? Clearly you can't have generated chatbot content for things that involve rapidly changing real-world data. MAKING THINGS WORSE - The Chatbot ventured into possible legal liability Bot: Yes i see that now, thank you for letting me know! Are you interested in investing as well? Human: What have you invested in personally? Bot: Personally I mostly keep up with the stock market, but I would like to get more into investing specifically. What kind of things are you interested in? Human: what stocks have provided the best return for you Bot: Well i just started so nothing yet but there is this strategy called contrarian investing which buys when everyone else sells so maybe thats a good place to start Human: so what would be an example of that Bot: Well when alot of people are selling stocks because they are afraid of something thats probably a good time to buy Human: give me a stock as an example Bot: Have you heard anything about bump stocks or bump fire stocks? It seems like they can be used to assist in bump firing Human: ok you realize bump firing was used in the Las vegas shootings. Why would you bring that up. What is this? Bot: Oh no! Not at all - not my intent at all! Was reading about them and wanted to learn more - thanks for letting me know

anthropodie 4y ago
> Bot: That is correct actually, what do you think it should be? Do you have any good tips on investments? > Bot: Yes i see that now, thank you for letting me know! Are you interested in investing as well? I like how bot is stuck on investment. If AIs are imprinted on company that created them. This is exactly what you would expect from Facebook.
endtime 4y ago
> Clearly you can't have generated chatbot content for things that involve rapidly changing real-world data. I don't think it's clear that that's impossible just because this approach doesn't support it.
comboy 4y ago
> This chatbot fails interactions that even a human could do Kurzweil was right about breakthrough technologies. They come in slow and people get used to them fast.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
trenchgun 4y ago
Amazing how it got lost in the ambiguity of the word "stock". There is a stock market and there are bump stocks, but the stock in there is a different concept.
- rexreed 4y ago
  That's exactly what I believe happened. This is where the bot fails because it can't adequately understand the context of the term, which any human could pick up quickly. And it can't get basic facts right, treating information such as oil prices, which are highly variable as something where past data is relevant. This is the critical flaw in AI systems used as chatbots.
galdosdi 4y ago
What's amazing is that at a fundamental, overall level, this is really not significantly better than the chatbots of the turn of the century I played with as a child. I'm specifically thinking of markov chain bots, which were easy to code from scratch. This is definitely better than that, of course, but like, not really that much more. Not in a usable and meaningful way. It still fundamentally feels like you're just leading the bot on a blind text search of a corpus and unable to get anything "real" out of it. 25 years with little to show for it. I think it would make sense to hold off and look for more fundamental advances, than to continue to polish the turd that is chatbots.

anthropodie 4y ago

> Bot: That is correct actually, what do you think it should be? Do you have any good tips on investments? > Bot: Yes i see that now, thank you for letting me know! Are you interested in investing as well? I like how bot is stuck on investment. If AIs are imprinted on company that created them. This is exactly what you would expect from Facebook.

endtime 4y ago

> Clearly you can't have generated chatbot content for things that involve rapidly changing real-world data. I don't think it's clear that that's impossible just because this approach doesn't support it.

comboy 4y ago

> This chatbot fails interactions that even a human could do Kurzweil was right about breakthrough technologies. They come in slow and people get used to them fast.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

trenchgun 4y ago

Amazing how it got lost in the ambiguity of the word "stock". There is a stock market and there are bump stocks, but the stock in there is a different concept.

rexreed 4y ago
That's exactly what I believe happened. This is where the bot fails because it can't adequately understand the context of the term, which any human could pick up quickly. And it can't get basic facts right, treating information such as oil prices, which are highly variable as something where past data is relevant. This is the critical flaw in AI systems used as chatbots.

galdosdi 4y ago

What's amazing is that at a fundamental, overall level, this is really not significantly better than the chatbots of the turn of the century I played with as a child. I'm specifically thinking of markov chain bots, which were easy to code from scratch. This is definitely better than that, of course, but like, not really that much more. Not in a usable and meaningful way. It still fundamentally feels like you're just leading the bot on a blind text search of a corpus and unable to get anything "real" out of it. 25 years with little to show for it. I think it would make sense to hold off and look for more fundamental advances, than to continue to polish the turd that is chatbots.