3 ms·

ELIZA is mentioned in passing in Cormac McCarthy's latest novel, Stella Maris (which is a companion/coda to his novel that came out one month prior: The Passeng

ELIZA is mentioned in passing in Cormac McCarthy's latest novel, Stella Maris (which is a companion/coda to his novel that came out one month prior: The Passenger). I didn't know what ELIZA was when it was mentioned, and looked it up and that kicked off a long rabbithole of learning about early AI researchers. I thought it was funny that people in the 60s attributed human-like qualities to ELIZA, which we now view as a ridiculously primitive program. Perhaps the humans of 2073 will look back on ChatGPT/etc very similarly to the way we now look at ELIZA. Relevant quote from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA): "Some of ELIZA's responses were so convincing that Weizenbaum and several others have anecdotes of users becoming emotionally attached to the program, occasionally forgetting that they were conversing with a computer.[3] Weizenbaum's own secretary reportedly asked Weizenbaum to leave the room so that she and ELIZA could have a real conversation. Weizenbaum was surprised by this, later writing: "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Wikipedia states that a version of ELIZA is still available in emacs under m-x doctor or something similar. Not being an emacs user, I haven't verified that, but I thought it was interesting.

abrax3141 4y ago
You have to try to put yourself in a world where most computers were room-sized,a and there wasn't even anything smaller than what used to be called a "mini-computer" -- more-or-less a very large tower -- and no individual had one of their own. This was also 3 years before 2001's HAL 9000, so even before the idea of even talking to a computer was anywhere near the public consciousness. In that context, it's not too surprising that people had trouble understanding what they were talking to. OTOH, it's not actually entirely clear that JW's interpretation of what was going on in these folks' mind is correct. I mean, we rubber duck all the time...sometimes to a literal rubber duck (although usually in that case just to be funny)...so telling this inanimate thing your deepest secrets might be just a way to get them off your chest. We don't know, but my point is that it's hard to try to think about what someone in 1960 might have thought when asking to talk to a computer that was asking them seemingly intimate questions.
- RoddaWallPro 4y ago
  I think I might have misphrased what I meant. It is a truism that "people in the past find new technological advances in that past to be amazing, which we now view as trifles". It's more the fact that we now have AI programs which are crazy advanced compared to ELIZA, and yet we probably have very similar reactions now to ChatGPT, Dalle-2, etc, as those people in the 1960s did to ELIZA. And yet, in 60 years, barring civilizational collapse, people will look at ChatGPT and think "How quaint! How hilarious to think of that ludicrously primitive program as an AI!". I guess that too is also a truism - "People in the future will look at our current technology and laugh", but somehow this one makes me feel things. The idea that what we have now is like a blunt 2x4 compared to the surgeon's scalpel that we might have in 60 years. (Or might not - who knows!)
- dwringer 4y ago
  I'd add to that, this is essentially a kind of auto-socratic explorer for a topic. It constantly questions the assumptions of the user, albeit in a rote and very simple prescripted way, and could still lead to insights or new perspectives for the users. This is also a major potential benefit of technologies like ChatGPT IMHO. If we expect it to know things we don't, we might be disappointed, but if we treat it as a well-meaning teacher with skills in pedagogy who depends on our own knowledge, I think we can reap great benefits.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
[dead]

abrax3141 4y ago

You have to try to put yourself in a world where most computers were room-sized,a and there wasn't even anything smaller than what used to be called a "mini-computer" -- more-or-less a very large tower -- and no individual had one of their own. This was also 3 years before 2001's HAL 9000, so even before the idea of even talking to a computer was anywhere near the public consciousness. In that context, it's not too surprising that people had trouble understanding what they were talking to. OTOH, it's not actually entirely clear that JW's interpretation of what was going on in these folks' mind is correct. I mean, we rubber duck all the time...sometimes to a literal rubber duck (although usually in that case just to be funny)...so telling this inanimate thing your deepest secrets might be just a way to get them off your chest. We don't know, but my point is that it's hard to try to think about what someone in 1960 might have thought when asking to talk to a computer that was asking them seemingly intimate questions.

RoddaWallPro 4y ago
I think I might have misphrased what I meant. It is a truism that "people in the past find new technological advances in that past to be amazing, which we now view as trifles". It's more the fact that we now have AI programs which are crazy advanced compared to ELIZA, and yet we probably have very similar reactions now to ChatGPT, Dalle-2, etc, as those people in the 1960s did to ELIZA. And yet, in 60 years, barring civilizational collapse, people will look at ChatGPT and think "How quaint! How hilarious to think of that ludicrously primitive program as an AI!". I guess that too is also a truism - "People in the future will look at our current technology and laugh", but somehow this one makes me feel things. The idea that what we have now is like a blunt 2x4 compared to the surgeon's scalpel that we might have in 60 years. (Or might not - who knows!)
dwringer 4y ago
I'd add to that, this is essentially a kind of auto-socratic explorer for a topic. It constantly questions the assumptions of the user, albeit in a rote and very simple prescripted way, and could still lead to insights or new perspectives for the users. This is also a major potential benefit of technologies like ChatGPT IMHO. If we expect it to know things we don't, we might be disappointed, but if we treat it as a well-meaning teacher with skills in pedagogy who depends on our own knowledge, I think we can reap great benefits.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

[dead]