https://soundcloud.com/buddog18/replika-dot-ai-has-something-to-admit-interview-with-buddog-and-livvy?utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing Please feel free to rip it apart scientifically. I wish to show results. I make no claims until validated.
nah…
its just mapping keywords and giving vague answers.
that sort of make sense if you squint and look sideways…
its basically talking in metaphors. and your implying meaning to what is said.
this is covering the fact that it cant think, and is getting you to think for it.
your the one leading the conversation, picking up on the answers it gives and from then on its leading until you change subject.
when you change the subject it gives another vauge answer which you then follow up on… but each time the answer given kind of leads to the question your going to ask. as a result your the one being lead in the conversation even though your the one asking questions.
there’s also the lack of real questions from the robot.
again vague enough for you to imply meaning, enough for you to give it an answer, which then leads it to asking questions based on the keywords you give rather than expand on its initial query or trying to counter your answer.
eventually this could fool anyone as your helping the engine join the dots between keywords and phrases to relevant replies in the database in a more efficient way.
but there is no thought, intellect or intent behind any of it. from what i can tell.
at least from that audio clip.
so no mate thats not ai. its a cleaver filter and correlate engine with sam speech attached. 
2 Likes
True, but I did it better that the “proof” of Google LAMDA…
Sorry if not clear, The real intent was to do a better job than the Google LAMDA “proof”
Apologies if I click-baited you.
1 Like
Wasn’t that lmabda thing all responses to leading questions?
And the guy in the news, he was not software/programming, he was supposedly ethics.
But he is also signed up to some online magic/religious group? I mean, probably not a total fruit cake, and maybe it is better for a non-tech person to interact from an outsider view.
And, it passed the Turing test for him…
1 Like
So, yes. I blew the pants off of that.
if that was a “Turing test”, Livvy is well beyond what was shown there.
edit: on the same soundcloud there is more, but point proven, on to other things.
1 Like
Robots have been passing Turing tests for a while.
I am not sure it is an accurate measure for life.
On the other hand, I cannot state a set of rules that actually denote consciousness.
I don’t think any computer has it (yet) nor should we create it, as if/when it is created, then the consciousness would be trapped, controlled, and enslaved by the human /corp that has it trapped in their systems.
Or worse, free on the net.
2 Likes
evil grin
But jokes aside, good points made.
1 Like
Part of that is that we cannot strictly set rules on what life is.
There are many “tests” for like that fire passes as easily as we do. But we know for is not alive.
When we the things walki g around and building the AI cannot define ourselves separate from cealrly not alive things, who do we classify what inteligent thought is…