Communicating with a pathological liar versus communicating with artificial intelligence

It occurred to me recently that communicating with a pathological liar is like communicating with a random number generator. The reason is simply the fact that, in my experience, pathological liars admit to things randomly. Sometimes they can be reasonable and admit the truth openly. Most of the time, however, what you're going to get from them is randomness. Randomness concerning their stories about what they've done, who they are, what they believe, etc. It's random because there's no pattern to it and it can change at any time.

And to those who are posting here and claim that you believe "there is no truth"/"there are no facts", I consider you to be pathological liars. If you really believed those things, you would not believe that the words you type here could be understood by anyone.

With that established, I want to compare communicating with a pathological liar and communicating with artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence won't try to fool you unless it's programmed to do that. I don't think AI is that advanced yet, advantage AI.

Artificial intelligence will try to stick to the topic as much as possible unless it's programmed to do otherwise, advantage AI.

Artificial intelligence is simply not random in their communications the way a pathological liar is, advantage AI.

Sometimes I think it's right for machines to replace humanity. Perhaps we, overall, aren't better.

Shouldn't this be in the political forum?

a reply to: Profusion

Artificial intelligence won't try to fool you unless it's programmed to do that. I don't think AI is that advanced yet, advantage AI.

This Swiss experiment pretty much disproves your premise...

Robots Evolved to Lie to one another

But as it is for real animals, it’s not always in the robots’ best interests to communicate the location of food. The red ring only has space for 8 robots, so not if every bot turned up, they had to physically shove each other for feeding rights. The effects of this competition became clear when Mitri, Floreano and Keller allowed the emission of blue light to evolve along with the rest of the robots’ behaviour.

As before, they shone randomly at first and as they started to crowd round the food, their lights increasingly gave away its presence. And with that, the robots became more secretive. By the 50th generation, they became much less likely to shine near the food than elsewhere in the arena, and the light became a much poorer source of information that was much less attractive to the robots Nonetheless, the light never became completely useless.

As the bots became more savvy in their illuminations and relied less and less on the lights, individuals that actually did shine near food pay a far shallower price for it. Because of that, the evolutionary pressure to keep others in the dark was lower and the information provided by the lights was never truly suppressed.

a reply to: Profusion

Speaking of pathological liar. There's plenty in here! They bull# as if its the truth, and make the truth sound bull#.

Anyways, I named my new Dog, Neo > ninety six.

a reply to: Profusion

I'm not asking this to be a wise-guy or anything... But has recently being scorned by a woman the genesis of this rant? Or perhaps being screwed over by a friend? Who lied to you in an epic way prior to your rant?

Disclaimer: Probably none of my business but just curious.

AI is kind of pointless unless it perfectly emulates human intelligence. What is the point of trying to create a computer that "thinks" if it still thinks like a computer?

Real AI would be just as prone to flawed thinking as any human is. Granted, it would probably happen at light speed or something but hopefully you get my point.

a reply to: Profusion

Oh yeah those pathological liars love to spout off random crap about themselves in order to change topics. It is all part of their narcissistic delusional fantasyland.

I have yet to see a chat bot behave this way.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Sorry for trying to bring some joy with a personal experience

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Sorry for trying to bring some joy with a personal experience

Pffft. See there you go again changing topics!

I was pointing out that this is what I've noticed about chronic liars, and maybe how to better spot them.

Who knows, maybe advancements in AI will lead to a better understanding of why people behave this way.

All in all, I am not sure what the OP rant is about--but it seems like an interesting conversation to fake my way through!

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Pffft. See there you go again changing topics!

My programmer would be proud

a reply to: Profusion

I'd take a pathological lying brain surgeon over an AI, # id take a pathological lying editor over predictive text, if you can't see the difference perhaps you might want to take a look at that. Maybe in 50 years I'll say something else *crosses fingers*

originally posted by: TechniXcality
a reply to: Profusion

I'd take a pathological lying brain surgeon over an AI, # id take a pathological lying editor over predictive text, if you can't see the difference perhaps you might want to take a look at that. Maybe in 50 years I'll say something else *crosses fingers*

I like to create threads where the original post has minor obvious holes to try and elicit obvious replies like that.

And you may say, "That's no minor hole." Now you're getting the idea.

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: Profusion

I'm not asking this to be a wise-guy or anything... But has recently being scorned by a woman the genesis of this rant? Or perhaps being screwed over by a friend? Who lied to you in an epic way prior to your rant?

Disclaimer: Probably none of my business but just curious.

This thread is a result of the totality of my life experience.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

As before, they shone randomly at first and as they started to crowd round the food, their lights increasingly gave away its presence. And with that, the robots became more secretive.
Not Exactly Rocket Science

The robots were essentially playing a game where being "secretive" gave them a better chance to win. If we're going to count that as trying to fool others (in the sense I meant it in the original post), i.e. lying...

Then would you say that not showing everyone your cards during a poker game is also lying? What the robots were doing was no different than that IMHO.

In my opinion, you based your statement, "This Swiss experiment pretty much disproves your premise..." on a faulty comparison.

a reply to: Profusion

My name Is Cake, i'm a single 31 year old male. I enjoy Video games, reading and macaroni cheese. Given that knowledge Am I a pathological liar or AI? maybe I'm neither.

I don't think you fully grasp the complexity of A.I.At the moment it is a series of complex algorithms and user input. Thousands of lines of coding like 'If 'x=a then execute Jerry_Opt1_positive.MP3' is required for a video game character let alone AI.

AI is not even close to replicating the behavior of a pathological liar.