Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   

When he tired of arguing with climate change skeptics, one programmer wrote a chatbot to do it for him.

The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn’t happening or humans aren’t responsible for it.

It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question – tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.

The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn’t at liberty to divulge.

Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its tweets have no idea they’re not conversing with a real human being. Some of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and many days, says Leck. That’s in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor continues to throw the same arguments at it. Leck has even programmed it to debate such esoteric topics as religion - which is where the debates humans have with the bot often wind up. Read more from Review


This makes me wonder at what point will people question their sources, maybe when a program can successfully out debate your position? Which side has really been programed? It really makes me wonder.

I would love to see an example where the bot out debated a person on twitter.

The word "priceless" comes to mind.
edit on 28-12-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Some times I wonder if there are a couple of these chatboxes being used by researchers here on ATS.
No fooling.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Well, I know I'm not a bot, because Cleverbot was wrong:




posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


The problem with these bots is that they can't calculate the nuances in the English language, a poorly worded question or an overly complicated question can't be answered by a machine, because they are basically glorified search engines that use a predetermined database to provide the answers.

If i were to ask a rudimentary question like "are the polar icecaps really shrinking?" then the bot will google itself for the terms 'polar' 'icecap' and 'shrinking' then it will string the results together to find an appropriate response, it doesn't provide the answer itself.

I like where the tech is going but it's nowhere near the level of sophistication that it could be.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:15 AM
link   
Wonder how it replys to the East Anglia global warming documents



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


So... it's a bot who promotes Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

Talk about political machinery.

In science, you can't assume a theory is 100% right. Which means, a true scientists only considers the possibility that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory could be the right model. Even the IPCC keeps re-adjusting its predictions, because global warming keeps on going lower than their prediction range.

edit on 28-12-2013 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Sounds like all the Pro Israel, Anti Semite accusing posts around here... Same Same



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Canned responses is certainly not 'out debating' anyones position, let along those responses being accurate.

It's simply an automated script, that puts the script writer's opinion across faster and without he or she having to manually input their standard reply or challenge to a given point.

Faster, easier replies to repetitive arguments yes...but factually correct replies?

Well, that is always going to be subjective based on the readers own point of view or opinion.

I or anyone else could do the same thing, and insert our own canned rebuttals to popular topics discussed here on ATS.

I could also program the replies to claim that the great lord Banana-rama-man is the creator or the sub-Universe...and write several hundred automated replies based on that argument to counter anticipated rebuffs and shot out in quick succession...doesn't make it true though does it.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:31 AM
link   
what would ya expect "Warmers" luv their computer models/bots

but I notice the one thing his bot doesn't address is the carbon credit tax scam & how it won't actually stop the Global Warming ...but twitter ? ReallY ?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


Didn't we already go through this with another bot called Gore-bot? Really stiff, mechanical sounding/thinking? Kinda oafish?


"..tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun..."


Yeah, if only Neptune was the ONLY planet that was warming in the solar system, the Gore-bot might have a point, otherwise, it will have to post links about how Neptune is the only body that is warming, which as far as I've seen from the scientists, most/all the planets are warming, which HARDLY points to man made global warming. They're over the "global warming" moniker now anyway, as it has failed, as they and everyone else knows it's failed, and have moved onto "climate change" now, which encompasses any/all weather related phenomena as being man made. Hot/cold/wet/dry/windy/calm it's all related to humans in the minds of the "global warming" failures who have now moved onto "climate change." It's fitting that they have a robot do their work for them, as a robot will be about as intuitive as most of the Albot Gores of the world, when it comes to the issue of ecology/environment/conservation.

These same idiots go to the mall on DC, have a rally where 10,000 show up, and leave the place a pigsty with litter and crap and garbage everywhere. Meanwhile, the tea party meanies who are supposed to be the pigs who hate everyone, can have 500,000 show up, and leave the place cleaner than they found it. One group talks about it, the other group picks up their trash and the trash of others. The Gorebots need to practice what they preach before I believe anything they say.

Just look at Gorebot's carbon footprint. What a typical eco-pig hypocrite he is.
Carbon footprint for thee, but not for me? Right Albot Gorebot?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Thanks for many of the responses however some seem pretty canned.

I wonder if we have some bots.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Grimpachi
Thanks for many of the responses however some seem pretty canned.

I wonder if we have some bots.


What could be more "canned" than a computer program that seeks out debate on the internet, then offers a canned response, as if it is a real person?


Seems pretty cowardly/ inept to me, if environmentalism is really all about saving the environment AND having knowledge about WTH one is talking about.

Sure, the canned bot might stifle a few debates here and there involving people using other "canned knowledge," but it will never be able to overcome the facts, if someone knows the facts and is able to present them intelligently in a debate.

It's too bad that those who "believe" so much in "climate change" (and the disastrous consequences for all mankind, because of mankind), sure are taking a cavalier attitude about presenting their case, considering that their case is hanging by a thread, as it is, with it waaaaaaaaaay down on the list of "concerns" among the human populace right now.

To me, this just shows how weak their argument is. It's like an election campaign or something, with the auto-bot trying to drum up votes in desperation. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. No bot can replace a knowledgeable human, at least not yet. Maybe someday everything we read on the net will be someone's bot doing all the thinking, talking, debating for them, but right now, AI just isn't advanced enough. It can spew links haphazardly, I imagine, which is fitting also, since much of the whole man-made "climate change" argument, with their phoney drumming up of numbers and facts and e-mail agendas and Al Gore and his hypocrisy, is fairly haphazard too.

I love the environment. I want to take care of it too! I want clean air/water for all! We need to do all those things because it's good for us. We don't need phony political agendas driving it, because nothing good ever comes from phoney political agendas that are really nothing more than the acquisition of more power for politicians and their enviro-cronies, like the bankrupt/never did anything solar companies Obama invested all that taxpayer money in, for zilch, except it made a few of the higher ups at those companies incredibly wealthy, in an incredibly short period of time.

I'm with you on the cause of the environment, I just don't think the answer lies in running from the truth, or using bots to supposedly defend an agenda one believes in, as if it is a campaign drive rather than a seeking of the truth, and a following through on those truths. Fukushima scares the crap outta me, and I have loved ones on the West Coast that just say "meh, we're fine..." and "the media" says they are, or are ignoring it. THAT is a MAN-MADE disaster that I can be alarmed about! CFCs? Ppppppppfffffffttttttt. The ice core samples dating back millions of years show regular intervals of global warming and cooling. To suppose it is a new phenomena is to simply deny the truth. We can't do that if you want to really go somewhere with an environmental agenda.

I know I'm hearing that the Fukushima disaster is "nothing to be alarmed about because it's like a thimble full of poison in a lake, nothing will even know it's there, it'll be so dilute..."

I hope they're right, and we need to find out if they are instead of wasting time on something that has happened for countless eons on this planet, and blaming it on US. JMO of course!



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I am on the fence here about the AGW for sure simply because the models are often presented in a disingenuous fashion.

They often make monte carlo simulations for errors and then compare models designed with power series against the monte carlo simulations rather than the actual climate data. It is a very simple task to model a power series against a monte carlo plot which the range of all values will be known.

Even worse they often claim the accuracy of the power series model up until most recent data points . . . . . THIS IS WHAT A POWER SERIES DOES!!!!!! The margin of error against actual data is outside the error bounds defined by the monte carlo simulation which was deemed accurate.

Here is an intro to power series (Taylor)


Quick note here: a factorial is the ! symbol after a number ie 5! which means 5x4x3x2x1.


Furthermore we know very little of the oceans compared to the atmosphere, especially concerning its chemistry. It just seems incredibly irresponsible to be presenting these models as relevant when their margins of error are massive.

No business could offer a product with errors as massive as this unless they worked for Enron or AIG.


I applaud the ingenuity in this individuals approach to solving his personal problem of being upset about what people say on the internet, but I do hold strong reservations about the movements approach to modelling.

-FBB



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

Those who subscribe to the 'man-made global warming' hoax are the ones who are really anti-science (HIDE THE DECLINE!!) or are at least anti-science that disagrees with their agenda. So this story is about an anti-science person programming a bot to spew an agenda filled hoax. Lovely.
edit on 12/29/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
It's a good indication of how predictable the typical string of arguments against AGW are (the whole Solar System is warming).
It's also a good indication on how little research the typical AGW denier has actually done...or how much of it is ignored.

Chemtrailbot...anyone?
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 



...I applaud the ingenuity in this individuals approach to solving his personal problem of being upset about what people say on the internet...


He's the cousin of spammers and trolls.


Anyway, I liked the way you put that. I wish I could be that diplomatic.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Chemtrailbot...anyone?

I think it's cruel to maltreat machines, even virtual ones.



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 

Come to think of it. ATS could serve as a pretty good database...
Coding wouldn't be that tough...
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
The problem is real science is tough to understand. The solution is to run everyone through school again and/or retrain their neuroanatomy, but this all is too expensive. So what we have is a non-solution solution. Links are given to deniers and it's "solved". Sad fact of the matter is this anthropogenic global warming problem will be pushed through leadership without the consent of the deniers and hte deniers will have to cope with it somehow, sort of like how anti-war protesters cope with war. I predict lots of denier demonstrations and protests, but it's all just a lot of noise. These people are not living in reality and there's no way to placate them.

Let me repeat my argument... My argument is science is too technical for most people to UNDERSTAND. This means most people must believe and/or trust science. What we have is a situation where only a minority of people really understand the science. It's the same deal with war. Most people do not have access to the information to make solid decisions about war. It requires too much time and too many national security issues. Inevitably people must have faith in their military and intelligence agencies because they themselves are hopeless to understand it.

I assert it would be too expensive to fully educate everyone. Society depends on faith in leadership and in experts. Faith is a strong part of who and what we're. This might in fact be why we have religion and so many cults and extremists. The same thing which strengthens society also makes us susceptible to bad things.

The true battle is not in being right, it's in winning people to your cause. If you're a great speaker and a likeable person by most, you'll win a lot of them. This is exactly how climate scientists will succeed in pushing AGW legislation through leadership into action. Scientists, on hte whole, are not the kind of people to sell themselves, but this is what they have to do. This is not easy for them to understand. Alongside politicians and likeable people, this is how AGW legislation is passed.
edit on 29-12-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 

I agree that the nuts and bolts of the science can be difficult but I don't think most people are incapable of understanding the concepts if they are presented properly. The real problem is the misinformation which is spread (i.e. the whole Solar System is warming). That's the point of this guy's project.



If you're a great speaker and a likeable person by most, you'll win a lot of them.
Add an ability to communicate complex concepts to those not trained in science and you've got a winner.
edit on 12/29/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join