Maybe this belongs in the bot forum ... not sure.
Read it here (http://cleverbot.com/human).
Now I don't know the details of how a Turing test is conducted, but it is claimed that Cleverbot appeared 59% human while humans scored just 63%.
The version that is tested does more work to produce responses than the typical Internet interface. It's fun to chat with, but you wouldn't be chatting with the more intelligent version that is used in competitions.
It will probably pass the Turing test in the near future because it is using a very large database of learned responses produced by people, the users of the Cleverbot (I was last told a few months ago that it has 42 million learned responses) ... hence, when it responds, it seems feels like it could be a person (or alternating people).
If it passes the Turing test, it will mean that the test is flawed. Cleverbot is not intelligent.
I tried talking to Cleverbot, and it quickly asked me to deactivate myself. :'(
Quote from: dark_drake on September 16, 2011, 09:15:23 AM
I tried talking to Cleverbot, and it quickly asked me to deactivate myself. :'(
Yeah. Because it learns responses from users (who refer to it as a robot), it often responds to users as if they were robots :)
It's because the test took place in India. Did you see how the people in the study were only 63% human?
(Someone make sure deadly can't see this thread).
Quote from: MyndFyre on September 16, 2011, 11:03:08 AM
It's because the test took place in India. Did you see how the people in the study were only 63% human?
(Someone make sure deadly can't see this thread).
Haha, that's twisted.
On the other hand, this technology (Jabberwacky) has won Loebner prizes twice before. It was 42% human last year and now it is 59% ... not too surprising.