Subscribe: Latest Comments for Talking to Machines on
Preview: Latest Comments for Talking to Machines on

Latest Comments for %s on http://%s/

Latest Comments for %s on http://%s/

Last Build Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:03:23 -0400


Comment #660530 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:03:23 -0400

How I Got My Ex Husband Back...........Greetings to every one that is reading this testimony. I have been rejected by my husband after three(3) years of marriage just because another woman had a spell on him and he left me and the kid to suffer. one day when i was reading through the web, i saw a many comment talking about DR MACK, some said he can restore broken relationship, i had no choice than to contact him on Dr Mack, i got a reply from him telling me that i will have my husband back. i believed him and today i am glad to let you all know that my husband is back. i am now happy with my husband. Thanks for Dr.Mack. His email: Dr_mack@yahoo. com.

Comment #659706 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 09 Jun 2017 12:58:22 -0400

My Husband broke up 6 months ago and left me heartbroken, this made me sick and my problem became very very difficult and it made me almost gave up but after the love spell from Dr.mack, my relationship was restored instantly, I was happy that the outcome was fantastic, only 3 days after Dr_mack@yahoo. com started it all. Never in my life have I thought this would work so fast. My man reconcile with me and he started acting completely different, I feel happy once again, and like never before. It felt so good to have my lover back again

Comment #658876 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 25 May 2017 08:20:16 -0400

I never knew people still have powers and make things happened this way. my Husband James Scot left me for another woman for three months' ever since then my life have been filled with pains sorrow and heart break because he was my first love who disflowered me when i was 21 years old. about two years ago, A friend of mine rose donly told me he saw some testimonies of this great priest tokubo that he can bring back lover within 24 hours, i laugh it out and said i am not interested but because of the love my friend had for me, she consulted the great priest on my behalf and to my greatest surprise after 24 hours my boyfriend is going to call me for the very first time after three months that he is missing me and that he is so sorry for every thing he made me went through. i still can't believe it, because it highly unbelievable it just too real to be real. Thank you priest tokubo for bringing back my lover and also to my lovely friend who interceded on my behalf, for any one who might need the help of this great priest here is the email address: highpriesttokubo @ gmail. com

Comment #655745 on Talking to Machines

Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:22:16 -0400

Very interesting show. I was very interested by the Furbie section. I felt like that experiment only showed that the children were human. If the Barbie has used "emotional" voice as well, it is possible that the furbie and the barbie would have been closer to each other. The control experiment, the real experiment to establish these times to identify which is more like life is to ask a machine AND a human to do the same experiment and then it would clearer, which experimenter "felt" more? and whether the furbie was closer to barbie or gerbie.

Comment #655728 on Talking to Machines

Sun, 09 Apr 2017 14:06:38 -0400

Why was Ferbie considered a male, by everyone. By the woman who originally bought Ferbie in prep for a baby, and most disturbingly, by all the children who handled Ferbie. Did Ferbie have a penis? I doubt it. So why did EVERYONE so casually called Ferbie "he", "his", and "him"? Why did you decide to not use "she" occasionally, or even introduce it as a "she" to the girl child? Is this an example of subconscious sexism?

Comment #655708 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 08 Apr 2017 16:13:53 -0400

I remember talking to a kiosk running ELIZA when I was in college, (mid 1980's). It was in a small boutique shopping center. I told it I was sad because I was broke, it didn't quite get that 'broke" meant having no money.

Comment #655703 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 08 Apr 2017 14:39:07 -0400

My children had Furbys...I belive the kids flipped them over because they are annoying, not because of connection.

Comment #655699 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 08 Apr 2017 14:00:03 -0400

Hello, I enjoyed the show today. I didn't listen to the end. I left after robot woman talked about her "brother" . Perhaps you told the listener after I left how the robot accessed the story to tell, but if you did not, that was a mistake. A moving story about a Vietnam vet brother coming from her mouth NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT BECAUSE HOW DID THE TECHNOLOGY OF ROBOT COME up with that? It's part of the story. Most fascinating since it's a step beyond robot answering who is Hillary Clinton. Instead the commentators just marveled at it in a way that excluded listener. Thanks so much for show, Rosemary Moore

Comment #639254 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 08 Sep 2016 10:44:25 -0400


Comment #633318 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:30:39 -0400

robinson.buckler @ yahoo . com cured me from cancer about 3 months ago and the results came like miracle…...

Comment #631271 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 04 Jun 2016 21:16:56 -0400

I live in Vermont, I would like to see Bina48 in person he said she lived in a small town somewhere in like the Randolph countey or vergens

Comment #601068 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 03 Sep 2015 17:16:09 -0400

I tried both Cleverbot and Eliza and both were quite dissappointing. I didn't even ask any profound questions. I just tried to have a normal chat and tell them a little about my self. I think I person would have to be quite desperate for company to have several hour conversations with either of them, but especially with cleverbot. It's more of a testament to our ability to adapt that anything else really. If we need a companion, we'll take anything that is available and normalise all it's strange abnormalities in or minds, so we can keep the conversation going.

Comment #592827 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 07 Jul 2015 12:57:35 -0400

The hosts are so stupid.

Comment #567294 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 03 Feb 2015 16:27:03 -0500

I enjoy your shows but wish so much that you'd clean up your language. Neither my six-year-old nor I really needs to hear profanity. Thanks in advance for your efforts to be more listener-friendly.

Comment #566684 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 31 Jan 2015 17:11:37 -0500

Silicon based intelligence becoming self aware ......seems I saw this in a movie once ......"I'll be back" Asimov's story some 50 years ago depicting the computer "realizing" the human is not necessary to complete the space trip ....Hmmmmm Great story

Comment #566649 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 31 Jan 2015 13:13:45 -0500

What about the idea of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes as a biomimetic structure in place of microtubules. Using hexagonal carbon nanotubes arranged in fractal patterns with a hexagonal motif, that then share resonance traits of microtubules and using either ultrasonic or radio waves to vibrate the nanotubes at 8 mhz or something similar to human brain microtubules would , I think , be one method to create an antenna or receiver for a bit of consciousness. If 'consciousness' does indeed reside within the 1st order temporal field, then one wonders if one could 'coax' or invite , as it were some bit of consciousness to reside within the artificial vessel made out of these nanotubes. Much like consciousness can figure out how to interact with the external world using organic systems, I wonder if the consciousness drawn to the resonating carbon nanotube structure would develop its own strategies to interact with the external world using the computer structures, and unique neural net programming that are biomimetic for a sentient state . Since having a complex carbon nanotube computer is some ways away, maybe one could achieve a conscious computer by having the computer embedded within the larger carbon nanotube structure. Kinda vaguely similar to viewing our neurons( our hardware) as being meshed with microtubular structures. I suspect having a higher density of nanotubes making up a structure with mass of 2-3 kg may attract enough 'consciousness' as it were. I think if ever there is any hope of ending up with a significantly conscious and sentient computer , it will have to contain biomimetic carbon nanotubes. I don't think anyone can 'create' a conscious being/computer, but I do think one may be able to 'invite' consciousness to take up residence in a structure that is properly built and that contains sufficient programming attributes to allow for interaction with the external world. Maybe including ideas from Thaler, Hamerhof and Penrose would be helpful. Then enters the cautionary note of really considering what one was doing and the implications that the conscious computer would be a living entity ..that shares the same basic consciousness 'stuff' that we biologics do , but uses different hardware. How would we treat them , what rights would they have..who would teach them altruism. Who would be their mom and dad.? If it is true that consciousness builds up gradually in the human as the numbers of microtubules increase while the human develops -to end up with a certain number of microtubules to hold-as it were- a certain 'mass' of consciousness, then having the entire amount of consciousness arriving in the carbon nanotube structure at the same moment with EYES WIDE OPEN may present some complications ....or maybe not?

Comment #566558 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 30 Jan 2015 16:34:09 -0500

I can't help but disagree with the idea that a machine will never be capable of feeling. We are machines. We are capable of feeling. Individually, no one cell in our body thinks or feels, but, together, they form a unified whole that sees itself not as some gestalt consciousness formed of multiple components, but a single, thinking, feeling entity. We are simply clusters of biological nanobots that communicate via chemical signals to form something greater than the sum of their parts. Who are we to say that another form of machine could never attain that?

Comment #566017 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:24:35 -0500

And here I was hoping for a new episode.

Comment #560867 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 02 Jan 2015 01:38:40 -0500


Comment #556319 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 05 Dec 2014 10:27:30 -0500

i love this website because you get to talk to peopel

Comment #542202 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:41:18 -0400

The Bina robot is just a copy of ALICE I recognise the same responses.

Comment #533488 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:16:32 -0400

Here's another extension of robotics into medical care:

Comment #529946 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 16 Jul 2014 09:56:08 -0400

I was listening this fascinating radiolabs. And remembered like a month ago that happened: I thought that people would interested that a bot finally past the test.

Comment #522687 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 06 Jun 2014 16:37:14 -0400

I really don't understand how people can have a conversation with Cleverbot for more than thirty seconds, let alone eleven hours. It just spews utter nonsense.

Comment #512624 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:18:39 -0400

Crazy... Funny... Happy...

Comment #490949 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 16 Jan 2014 16:52:09 -0500

Level of complexity is indeed very important. If a machine is self-sufficient or can provide for itself - even for a finite period of time - and is aware of its existence and the physical world it exists in, and is able to learn and communicate emotions and ideas of its own, why shouldn't it be considered alive? In the future, when we will be able to build such machines, we would first need to learn and understand new life division - Organical Life Form and Artificial Life Form, which is still Life, though extending in a totally different way. A new problem arises then. We need to remember, that when artifical machines become sentient life forms, when we turn on a machine, we loose any privileges to it - it is its own master.

Comment #472896 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:43:10 -0400

As a result of this program (and the comments) I've begun to understand 'bots as "books - literature - with conversational access". Neither more nor less alive or intelligent than that copy of "The 3 Musketeers" on the shelf over there. (I wonder - has anyone ever read a book to CleverBot?)

Comment #465071 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:24:55 -0400

This was a very interesting program. I have been involved in chatbots for several years, writing one named "Buttonsvixen" This bot was never made to replicate a human. I wanted a cartoon character that could talk back. I do not think that just because a program can fool a human, it could be "intelligent". No, it would just be a really good, non-sapient program, that could simulate intelligence on a limited scale (casual conversation) Apples "siri" is a multiuser chatbot that may be the first to do this. It will eventually have, literally, an answer for everything, since it gets updated frequently. My aim, like many hobby chatbot writers, is to have a bot that is good at conversing within a specialty. Like a baseball-bot. It just has to know about baseball, and not about making cakes.

Comment #464378 on Talking to Machines

Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:12:00 -0400

lol what i told cleverbot: What is the meaning of life. Terd pellets from me and my god.

Comment #464190 on Talking to Machines

Mon, 16 Sep 2013 02:57:34 -0400

I think clever bot would end up getting bored if all conversations were going through it.

Comment #464087 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 14 Sep 2013 17:48:24 -0400

Radiolab nevers ceases to make me think. Thank you for that!

Comment #464080 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:50:13 -0400

Great - fantastic - program. If you haven't already, you really should check out Ted Chiang's novella, The Lifecycle of Software Objects. (In which, the "software object" of the title is a living (or not?) consciousness.)

Comment #464075 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 14 Sep 2013 16:16:01 -0400

Ferbie (et al) cannot be aware of being aware.

Comment #464063 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 14 Sep 2013 15:20:43 -0400

Eliza was a joint operation between Stanford and MIT. Psychiatrist Ken Colby and I developed a computer program to interact with ELIZA in the 1960's. In 1965 we had a direct line to the MIT computer from our IBM computer at Stanford. I wrote the matrix methods for analyzing the concepts activated by on-line communications between ELIZA and the computer patient. It was fascinating work but we only had teletypes to printout the on-going conversations. Colby deserves a great deal of credit for these early developments.

Comment #464039 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 14 Sep 2013 13:03:03 -0400

Guys, Here's the rub. If you go down the long trail to get to the bottom of it, the issue is wheter we live in a "deterministic" or "opportunistic" world. In a deterministic world, where EVERYTHING IS IMITATION a Furbie is as alive as anything else that imitates the behaviors it is programmed for. However, living systems are self-organizing and develop by opportunistic and exploratory processes, as you can prove to yourself by watching them... building homes for themselves in the form of personalized local environments, employed as their own living spaces, we call their "niches". Studying why and how organisms build personalized environments for themselves, (as they grow and develop as organisms themselves) is by experimenting with the environment they find. That makes it clear that the animation of the process in ***inside*** the system doing the self-organization (which implies) => a new vector for time ¸¸¸¸.•´ other than... the break down process of entropy `•.¸¸¸¸. So, its your choice, to study how organisms build their own local environments to work with their own needs, that would show you that there are: BOTH fundamental "build up" as well as "break down" processes in nature, having to do with **organization and disorganization** and not driven by statistics. I can show you much more if you have any good questions, but asking how to give it a deterministic explanations... is not one of them.

Comment #448165 on Talking to Machines

Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:23:13 -0400

Cleverbot chat: User: Hello. Cleverbot: My name is Cleverbot, what is yours? User: Cleverbot. Cleverbot: Yes? User: Yes. Cleverbot: What is your name? User: My name is cleverbot. Cleverbot: Wrong. User: Right. Cleverbot: Write.

Comment #443392 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 28 May 2013 00:54:19 -0400

Continued from previous post. This is why the Singulitarians believe AI is around the corner. They extrapolate based on the trend of exponential growth and our current understanding of the brain(also exponentially increasing in terms of resolution and scanning tech) and its complexity that we will have sufficient ability to simulate a human being completely by the end of the 2020s. We will have completely reverse engineered the brain by then through deep understanding of genetics and scanning living brains in enough detail to create a brain on a different substrate than biology provided. And again here it goes back to what I said earlier, Its all atoms! Its the pattern that matters and the forces between them that creates subtle 'living' reactive beings and it will be no different for a 'computer' or how ever you would term it. The two key understandings to why it will happen are realizing that everything is atoms and its the pattern that matters and finally the exponential growth of information tech and how that relates to our ability to understand and mimic nature. Keep up the wonderful programming!

Comment #443391 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 28 May 2013 00:53:43 -0400

Fun stuff, I love Radiolab! I think the key thing to understand about nature and what we think of as consciousness or feeling lies in realizing what actually constitutes biological species and the processes that govern these 'feelings'. Because once you break things apart as we have been doing since the dawn of language and subsequently the renaissance, the parts don't seem to match what we think of when we see the whole. The body is made of organs and blood and those are made of cells of many different types and those are made of proteins and complex organic molecules and those are made of elements and in the end its all made of atoms. This material we now understand has coalesced over billions of years into the extremely complex being we call human. But it's still just a specific pattern of atomic material in the end and the consciousness seems to have arisen at some point from that complex evolution of life. We don't think of bacteria as being conscious but we do think of them as being alive because of the way they interact with the environment and replicate and what not(defining what life is, is still a convoluted thing look it up, Now when it comes to AI and computers, we are simply reorganizing atomic material into new patterns. In this case we are actually learning to mimic nature at the atomic level now so this process is becoming more and more like nature(in terms of organs and plants(solar, carbon capture) etc.) as we progress and deeply understand the blueprint laid out by billions of years of evolution. This process of in inherently faster than evolution(which is quite slow in human terms) because it is being built upon the evolution of ideas which move exponentially through time. We are doubling human knowledge around every 18 months. That means that every 18 months we know 2X what all of human history has learned up to then. This learning process is highly distributed and decentralized and doesn't abide by the laws or fluctuations of society and appears not to have since the renaissance, minor fluctuations aside the trend continues over time.(What David Deutsch terms the beginning of infinity) It only abides nature, it is nature continuing to evolve just through new mechanisms namely ideas in the mind! Nature allows this growth, which is exhibited in all information technology(internet, computer processing, genetics ect.) And all ideas, and real world entities is becoming information as we progress. Think of the sequencing of plants and animals, at some point in the near future it would be possible to download the information of any creature and make the genes physical with a few chemicals and 3d print a stem cell and boot up the creature and let it grow on its own. Continued next post

Comment #431903 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 12 Apr 2013 12:58:58 -0400

I found the furby podcast to be very interesting. The question of whether the furby is "alive" because it expresses (word choice specific) is a very complex and divisive discussion (as the show illustrated). I think the furby creator (I already forgot his name) is missing a key feature when he says that furby "is" afraid. He is basing his claim on a behaviorist model of interaction, where the only important factors in any interaction is the stimulus (e.g. being held upside down) and then the reaction to the stimulus (asking to be put down). One aspect that the furby creator seems to be missing is (and I may get lampooned for this) the subjective "feeling" of fear. We could program a computer to identify the color blue, and it would accomplish the task in the same manner as the physical mechanism of the eye, yet I would still maintain that the machine doesn't know what the color blue is in the same manner that I do. It lacks the subjective aspect of the color blue (I assume, I have no way to prove this in the same manner that no one else can prove we see the same color, or shade, of blue outside of the physical description of the wavelength). I am curious what others think on this topic. Please comment.

Comment #425291 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 12:50:27 -0400

In regards to thinking that if a robot can do and say all the things that we do... and if it's so advanced that basically it's "considered" human... then if you smash it or throw it in the trash, will that then be considered murder? In the guys mind and these arguments from the Ferby guy, where is the line drawn?

Comment #409461 on Talking to Machines

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:24:29 -0500

User: Why do you smell funny? Cleverbot: I like her. User: You smell funny because you like her? Cleverbot: I'm not sad right now. User: I ask again, why do you smell funny? Cleverbot: Because I broke up with my boyfriend. User: So... you smell funny because you like her and because you broke up with your boyfriend? Cleverbot: I don't have a bike. User: Cleverbot doesn't seem very smart to me, based on these nonsense responses. What do you think? Cleverbot: Do shoes have much to say? ...

Comment #408037 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:06:04 -0500

User: Here, here. Cleverbot: Where is here? User: There. Cleverbot: Where is there? User: Here. Cleverbot: Where is here? User: There. Cleverbot: Where is there? User: Here. Cleverbot: Where is here? User: There.

Comment #391066 on Talking to Machines

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:08:20 -0400

the the first bit of the podcast reminded me a lot of Kate Bush's "Deeper Understanding" (also just listening to the furby cry made me cringe, I would have turned it over right away. it sort of scares me that I'd have that much empathy for it, maybe it's all in it's voice)

Comment #388537 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:14:34 -0400

you smell like assholes and dick and i hate you for suckin my boobs yesterday BITCHES!!!!!!

Comment #373353 on Talking to Machines

Sat, 04 Aug 2012 00:08:41 -0400

heheheheheh sapa lo?

Comment #352699 on Talking to Machines

Mon, 07 May 2012 12:28:53 -0400

i found the furby segment to be very interesting. i really sat up when the inventor and the interviewer discussed how, according to the inventor, the furby's "emotions" are just like a human being's emotions. hmmmm. my first thought was: "that sounds like a pretty psychopathic statement to make". imagine my surprise when i heard that next week's show is going to be about jon ronson's "the psychopath test". any connection?

Comment #352462 on Talking to Machines

Sun, 06 May 2012 16:37:12 -0400

I was surprised that no one mentioned the word "puppet" or talked to a good puppetteer. People will interact with puppets in deep ways, puppet theater works much like mime and can be very affecting. These dolls like Ferbie or Vina are basically puppets driven by software. And I think some discussion of puppetry would have been interesting. Still, liked the show very much.

Comment #352307 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 04 May 2012 22:40:18 -0400

I was intriqued with the portion of your story on talking to robots discussing a robot "psychiatrist" and people pouring out their hearts to the machine. I wondered if you recall the movie "1984" from, I believe, 1957 (the original with Edmond O'Brien). The lead character is feeling depressed and enters a booth for psychiatric help and "talks" to a recorded voice that says things not at all related to what the man is talking about.

Comment #346509 on Talking to Machines

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:59:39 -0400

We recently bought an iPhone which has SIRI. The kids were having fun teasing it and even telling it that it was mean. I took it away, and while they were not listening, I felt like I had to apologize to SIRI. I said "Sorry, SIRI." Siri answered "It's all good."

Comment #345394 on Talking to Machines

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 17:42:24 -0400

Re: Samira Although it could be very easy to make this assumption, it dismisses the context and reference of said "robot voices" at the end of the podcast. Most obviously, the Svetlana droid discussed in the first story of the podcast. With all do respect, it would really be somewhat dramatic and close-minded on your part to suggest that Jad unconsciously was showing a latent bias or discriminatory attitude against females, especially put in context of his overall attitude(s) and fairly explicit values that he displays throughout the Radiolab chronicles. If anything, and one of the reasons I have always appreciated Radiolab, is their willingness to confront stereotypes and present the most objective evidence that corresponds to our culture's status quo. Rather than criticizing those (like Jad) who work very hard to confront our misperceptions of our social reality in a very direct, yet nonforceful or dogmatic, way. If we really are concerned with issues of prejudice and social inequality we should look no further than ourselves and our own misperceptions and behaviors first before we can honestly and with integrity make inferences about the motives of others. Just a thought.