(44 Likes) How do you know that Candace Owens is an artificial intelligence silicone doll/robot?
It uses “Chatscript”. It is open source, you can download it and create your own scripts for it. The user manual gives an example of how it works: For example, the types of people in the “I like spinach” section, if you have a scenario conversation that goes like this, you can add a rule: Q: (I like spinach) Are you a Popeye fan? cartoons? a: ( ~yes ) I used to watch it when I was a kid. Lust to Olive Oyl? b: (~no) Me too. It was very weak. b: ( ~yes ) You probably like skinny models. a: ( ~no) What cartoons do you watch? b: (none) You lead a poor life. b: ( Mickey Mouse ) Disney icon. ~yes means a sentence with positive words somewhere in it and ~no means there are negative words. This is an example from the Chatscript guide. How to create your first chatbot using ChatScript – Learn to code with free online courses, programming projects and interview preparation for developer jobs. No programming is required to understand what Popeye, cartoon, movie, skinny or model is. There is nothing out there that makes sense of them. It is text that only responds to keywords in other text. With pre-written responses that can take words from what you say to include in their answers. Sophia is designed with a humanoid face that can display appropriate emotions, which can be programmed along with written responses. It is also designed so that interviewees can capture emotional cues in their faces and speech and respond with appropriate emotional responses. Most of the work is putting it together. As part of this, in an early pilot study, it mimicked the state of human subjects in facial expression. There is no such thing as meditation, but showing a meditative face has helped one enter a meditative calm state. Take this video for example Kovach: How do you feel about people? Sophia: I love my human compatriots. I want to embody the best things about people. It’s like looking at the planet, being creative and learning how to be compassionate to all beings. A scenario would be something like this: (~feeling ~human) I love my human compatriots. I want to embody the best things about people. It’s like looking at the planet, being creative and learning how to be compassionate to all beings. All these texts will be written by a programmer, and then when the interviewer says the keywords, he says ‘he’ in response. And – from many interviews, they will know the typical questions people ask themselves. They can write answers for any type of question anyone asks. Here’s how Wikipedia summarizes how Chatscript works (I reformatted it using bullet points for easy reading, otherwise I quoted directly) ChatScript – Wikipedia : Because ChatScript is designed for interactive conversation, it automatically preserves the user state throughout the barrage. Volleyball is any number of sentences the user enters at the same time and chatbots respond. The basic element of scripting is the rule. A rule consists of a type, a tag (optional), a pattern, and an output. There are three types of rules. Gambits are something a chatbot controlling the chat might say. Replies are rules that respond to a user comment based on what the chatbot has just said. Responders are rules that respond to random user input that need not depend on what the chatbot has just said. Models define the conditions under which a rule can take effect. Patterns range from extremely simple to very complex (similar to Regex, but geared towards NL). Intensive usage is typically made of sets of concepts, which are lists of words that share a meaning. ChatScript contains about 2000 predefined concepts and scripts can easily write their own concepts. The output of a rule mixes literal words to be sent to the user along with common C-style programming code. Rules are collected in collections called topics. Topics can have keywords that allow the engine to automatically search the topic for relevant rules based on user input. Because it’s so simple in programming, “How do people feel about you?” One might respond in the same way as “I love my fellow countrymen”. I want to embody the best things about people…” Connect that to the speech recognition we have today, and these realistic animatronic, facial emotion recognition, and written emotional sequence responses, and there you are, “Sophia.” It’s like the hall of presidents in the Disney world, slightly updated and more flexible: (I got this from Tom Musgrove’s answer to the question What does Sophia of Hanson Robotics say about the future and current development of AI?) It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is by no means intelligent in the way we understand the word. Not a progression towards general intelligence. Progress is being made towards making robotics more user-friendly and machines that people find easier to connect with. This comes from a programmer involved in developing Sophia – more on how they use scripts “To give a speech in front of the audience, we sometimes just provide the robot with a script (scripts are provided to human actors to read, and politicians read their speech from teleprompters. Sometimes we provide a portion of the speech to the script) and we let the other part be synthesized by AI algorithms – it depends on the length of the speech and the context. Hanson Character AI is not that simple, because it’s not just about text – there is interaction between the words spoken, the robot’s movements and the robot’s tone of voice. Basically scripted Even in a presentation, there’s a lot of finesse, and there’s a lot the software calculates for how to appropriately present the script behaviors in the robot’s character.” “While doing public “chat-chat” type conversations with humans, human-scale Hanson robots often use Sophia 2017 Character AI a kind of “snow running an aspect of what is thought of as “ar graph”. At any given moment of the conversation, the robot decides what to say based on what was last said to it, any information it has about its current state, and any information it has hidden from previous parts of the current conversation. Occasionally collects information from the Internet (for example, the weather forecast or an answer to a real question). “Most of the robot’s responses are pieced together from material previously given to it by human “character writers,” but occasionally it constructs new sentences through a probabilistic model it draws from previous readings.” He also sometimes runs OpenCog, though not normally in these public interviews. This program can find things on the Internet and repeat them, put them together in semantically meaningful ways, and – so it still uses large chunks of text written by other people without any real understanding. They programmed it so that it could tell whether he was looking to the right or left and match his facial expressions. But his eyes are completely useless, he has no lens or retina, he can’t see any more than a faceless robot without eyes. Likewise for his ears. There is nothing there to hear or see, and the “eyes” and “ears” are just decorations to make it look real. Inventors think that doing more than that leads them to general intelligence in the long run, increasingly mimicking what we can do: I don’t think we’re going to make progress towards programmed general intelligence. Lots of impressive weak AI. It will be useful in many ways but I don’t think of anything that can really make sense of what it’s doing. I’ve seen the field of AI evolve more or less from its inception, first started programming in the late 1960s. He was not involved in the research, just interested, and did postgraduate research on mathematical logic and the closely related subject, the fundamentals of mathematics. Since the first program to let a computer play a decent game of checkers, there have been people who confidently say we’ll have AGI soon. Now the best programs can beat the world’s best go champions. Significant progress in weak AI. But still nothing remotely resembling AGI. In a well-written program, you can change just one line of code to make the robot lose every Go game as quickly as possible. He doesn’t care or even know what the game of Go is or what it means to win or lose. There is no sense of truth. Where am I g see comment