Skip to comments.
Software agent targets chatroom paedophiles ['chatbot' program]
New Scientist ^
| 17 March 04
| Duncan Graham-Rowe
Posted on 03/18/2004 11:08:23 AM PST by John Jorsett
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: John Jorsett
Soon the Internet will be clogged to a standstill with chatbots chatting with counter-chatbots.
2
posted on
03/18/2004 11:12:26 AM PST
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: John Jorsett
Called ChatNannies, the software was developed in the UK by Jim Wightman, an IT consultant from Wolverhampton in the West Midlands. It creates thousands of sub-programs, called nanniebots, which log on to different chatrooms and strike up conversations with users and groups of users.
We need software that creates thousands of sub-programs called jihadibots, which log to different chatrooms and strike up conversations with users and groups of users and attempt discover terrorists.
3
posted on
03/18/2004 11:15:36 AM PST
by
Asclepius
(karma vigilante)
To: John Jorsett
B - consider me chilled, daddy-o Oh, please. Don't tell me "daddy-o" is back in favor among subteens. Shades of Annette......
To: John Jorsett
Wow..I'm impressed by that conversation assuming it the real deal and doesn't take excessive amounts of setup for a conversation like that.
I hope hacker/crackers will have some good sense and leave this one alone and let it do some good if it can.
One bridge they'll have to cross at somepoint though is whether or not its illegal to proposition a computer program pretending to be a young child.
To: John Jorsett
Didn't Orrin Hatch have some wacky scheme to fry computers of people who were file sharing?
Maybe they could merge these two Ideas,with Fragmentation Grenades.
6
posted on
03/18/2004 11:21:31 AM PST
by
Redcoat LI
( "help to drive the left one into the insanity.")
To: John Jorsett
It's good. But if you're looking for it, it was obviously B.
To: Asclepius
Maybe they already do?! ;)
8
posted on
03/18/2004 11:22:56 AM PST
by
Freedom2specul8
(Please pray for our troops.... http://anyservicemember.navy.mil/)
To: John Jorsett
A bot that passes the Turing test? It would get lots more press than that.
can a bot detect another bot?
Is chatting up such a bot probable cause if you happen to fit it's algorithm?
Can network news anchors be replaced now?
9
posted on
03/18/2004 11:22:58 AM PST
by
DBrow
To: PropheticZero
I'm impressed by that conversation assuming it the real deal and doesn't take excessive amounts of setup for a conversation like that. Yeah, it's *far* better than any Turing-test bot I've seen elsewhere, which makes me suspicious.
To: PropheticZero
Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example.
11
posted on
03/18/2004 11:24:04 AM PST
by
Nataku X
(Ich bin ein ultrakonservativen Aktivisten & I am a chocolate frosted donut.)
To: ThinkDifferent
Yeah, it's *far* better than any Turing-test bot I've seen elsewhere, which makes me suspicious.
Note how A was completely passive. Didn't try to do anything except comment on what B said.
12
posted on
03/18/2004 11:25:52 AM PST
by
Nataku X
(Ich bin ein ultrakonservativen Aktivisten & I am a chocolate frosted donut.)
To: Nakatu X
"Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example." I wonder what it would do if you simply repeated back to it everything it "said"...
--Boris
13
posted on
03/18/2004 11:27:22 AM PST
by
boris
(The deadliest Weapon of Mass Destruction in History is a Leftist With a Word Processor)
To: ModelBreaker
I don't think so. I really didn't try to guess, was just looking for anything glaring and nothing really stood out.
If anything B offered more detailed information and talked about stuff actually happening to them.
Might make sure you eyes didn't peak down to the answer before you read the whole thing :)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
No. Only the teen chatrooms will. Sounds fine to me.
15
posted on
03/18/2004 11:30:54 AM PST
by
jwalburg
(Terrorists just need more counseling)
To: Nakatu X
Wonder if the bot'll be "broken" if you try to lead the conversation instead of letting the bot steer you. Nearly anything passes the Turing test if you are completely passive, bad example. A realated question might be if a Paedophile is more apt to take a passive or an active role in the conversation.
If they tend to stay for the most part passive, slowly weedling information then the bot may or may not work.
However if they are for the most part the most active part of the conversation and this bot can't handle it then it's usefullness is degraded.
To: ThinkDifferent; Nakatu X
17
posted on
03/18/2004 11:38:14 AM PST
by
general_re
(The doors to Heaven and Hell are adjacent and identical... - Nikos Kazantzakis)
To: John Jorsett
A - national holiday in the uk! . . . <snip> . . .
A - national holiday in the uk!
B - lol
B - hey, where are you from? the usa?
A - no the uk. Birmingham.
The 'bot doesn't listen very well.
To: John Jorsett
19
posted on
03/18/2004 11:43:21 AM PST
by
DBrow
Comment #20 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson