Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

How To Be Human

Call centers might be able to teach "chat bots" a thing or two about passing the Turing Test.

By Duncan Graham-Rowe

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

If this year's winner of the Loebner Prize is on the right track, call-center data could be what's needed to achieve the ultimate goal of artificial intelligence (AI): creating a computer program smart enough to hold a natural conversation.

A self-trained enthusiast with no formal academic background in AI, Rollo Carpenter created the winning program, which learns by analyzing its conversations with people as they "chat" with it online. Regardless of the language, his program analyzes every utterance it witnesses, using what Carpenter calls contextual pattern-recognition techniques. Then, when a user asks the program a question, a database is combed for the best response, statistically speaking.

This method may work for idle chit-chat. But if his bots--automated programs meant to perform specific tasks--are ever to be used in a serious commercial application or to pass the famous Turing Test for artificial intelligence, they will need a vast number of conversations, and computing power to match, says Carpenter. "I need more data," he says.

Thousands of fans have already conversed with his programs online, over nearly 10 years, and his software now contains several million utterances. But to pass itself off as "intelligent," the software will require at least ten times that number of utterances, says Carpenter.

To give his bots an extra boost, he's turning to call-center data. Carpenter has begun working with a firm in Japan, and if his plan succeeds, he says his "chat bots" may eventually be able to take over the roles of human operators.

This sort of statistical brute force approach to artificial intelligence has a lot of promise, says John Barnden, an AI researcher at the University of Birmingham, U.K., and one of the judges at this year's Loebner Prize, which was held in London. "There is enough evidence to suggest that it's worth trying." However, it won't be easy, he says. While Barnden suspects that training a bot on call-center data will work for an automated program designed to handle customer calls, it will probably take a broader range of knowledge and data to make it pass the coveted Turing Test, or at least the Loebner Prize version of it.

During the contest, a human judge chats with two subjects, using a keyboard: one subject is a machine, the other human. According to Alan Turing, the British mathematician who conceived of the test, if a judge is unable to tell which subject is a machine and which a human, the machine can reasonably be ascribed as having human-like intelligence.

Carpenter's program, Joan, followed the context of some of the contest conversations, and begrudgingly told a joke, much like an unenthused human. But tests of Joan (see selected transcripts from the contest below) provides some insight into Barden's pessimism about AI.

It will take time before anyone passes the Turing Test, he says. "Joan was certainly more coherent than the others," he says, but it was very obviously a program.

Comments

  • False track
    A commercial program named Racter performed already a fairly good simulacre of conversation on the mid eighties, on a Mac Plus. Now that we have, say, 100000x more computing power and memory available on the average desktop, the conversation produced by this type of programs are about at the same level. It is obvious to me that this is only cheating attempts, not real AI. For real AI, in my opinion, there is a common ground to be defined between the computer and the human, this entails a bottom up approach, going from sensors to sensations to proprioception and then only concept formation and language. Besides, for a system of (inter)understanding to emerge between the computer and some human, the key enabler will be the ability to define a shared intentionality between the two entities (think of hunger, desires, struggle for power and so on). Only an embodied program will be able to do the feat, not pure syntactical approaches facing combinatorial explosion in the patterns to match.

    Hugh Loebner should turn to roboticists now and stop to fund the dead end approach which started with Feigenbaum 40 years ago IMHO.

    Very best regards,
    Mel (dionomedssehc melajara/melajara@yahoo.com)
    Rate this comment: 12345

    melajara
    09/20/2006
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • missing subconscious impression
    aside from the obvious joke about call-center attendants being 'intelligent', from the conversation with Joan it seemed that it's missing a feeling of talking to someone who has a subconscious (whatever that may be): we don't talk everything we think, but a simbolic high-level representation of it, and somehow we expect that from other people we talk to - to pass a touring test, a robot must produce the same kind of feeling.
    Carlos
    Rate this comment: 12345

    cmleite
    09/20/2006
    Posts:1
  • Turing test is an undefined moving target
    The Turing test is not a well defined test. Whether a robot passes the Turing test or not, it greatly depends on the intelligence of the human partner. A chatbot may fool a 10-year old, but it may fail with a 20-year old. So in fact, we already have many chatbots that pass the Turing test – it all depends on how you look at the issue.

    Hint – most chat bots do not have memory, they do not remember what you talked about 5 minutes ago with them. They just react to the current input, they cannot do more. So, if you ask the chatbot to tell you what you talked about a few minutes ago, it won’t be able to do so. That’s the dead give away of a chatbot.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    09/20/2006
    Posts:418
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Porn industry leads the way
    As with many other internet technologies, it was the porno industry that lead the way in technological development. People may not know, but chatbots have been in commercial use for many years in the adult industry. The chatbots are hooked up to 900 numbers and SMS/text messaging systems for ‘dirty sex talk/messaging’. The beauty of the system is that a single chatbot can handle hundreds of horny men at the same time. You also don’t need any advanced chatbot or AI capabilities – porn talk is highly repetitive and the vocabulary required barely reaches 100 words, so a primitive chatbot can do it all.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    09/20/2006
    Posts:418
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.