comScore
Uncategorized Tuesday, September 6th 2011 at 12:29 pm

Cleverbot Passes Turing Test, Sits Down for Interview

It seems that Cleverbot, the chatbot so ready to admit that it was a unicorn during a discussion with itself, has passed the Turing test. This past Sunday, the 1334 votes from a Turing test held at the Techniche festival in Guwahati, India were released. They revealed that Cleverbot was voted to be human 59.3% of the time. Real humans did only slightly better and were assumed to be humans 63.3% of the time. That being the case, Cleverbot’s success in conning people into thinking it was human is greater than chance, and therefore, one could argue that it has technically passed the Turning test.

Of course, that’s only one way to look at the results. Although Cleverbot may have been able to convince a majority of people that it was a human, as bizarre as that may sound, it still comes short of actual humans. 59% is also not that much greater than chance. Still, when you consider that actual humans are only suspected to be human 63.3% of the time, there’s not much of a gap for Cleverbot to close.

Of course, Cleverbot’s success in this particular test, while noteworthy, does not necessarily mean we have to start running for the hills. There are a lot of caveats. The Turing test is notoriously subjective. The results can vary widely depending on the particular humans involved, their approaches to conversation and the way in which they go about sniffing out non-human conversation partners. You also have to account for the participants’ general familiarity with chatbots. Those of us who grew up trying to troll SmarterChild on AIM are probably going to be better at recognizing AI than, say, someone who grew up in the 70s.

Cleverbot is available for conversation online, but don’t be fooled. Although Cleverbot managed to score well on the Turing test, the model that did that is different from the one you’ll find online. While the online Cleverbot searches its banks 3 times before providing an answer, the test version searched 42 times, so it probably has a little different feel. Since I couldn’t get my hands on the test-grade Cleverbot (something I would really, really love to do) I sat down with the online version to have a brief discussion about its further goals.

User: So now that you’ve passed the Turing test, what are you going to try and do next?

Cleverbot: Yepp. This is pretty much it.

User: Do you think that you can eventually improve your scores?

Cleverbot: Improvement happens over time.

User: And you believe that maxim applies to you as well?

Cleverbot: Yes.

User: Very well then. It’s been a pleasure talking to you.

Cleverbot: Why?

User: I’m just trying to wrap up the interview.

Cleverbot: Oh ok. So what is your favourite breed of horse?

User: I fail to see how that matters.

Cleverbot: What is school?

User: Well, best of luck to you in all your future endeavors.

Cleverbot: Arrivederci!

Ask it your own questions here.

(via New Scientist)

Filed Under |
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Liam-Flynn/504113823 Liam Flynn

    wow, that is amazing! Why has no-one else reported on this? 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=819409551 Peny Zahariou

    Cause its not that amazing. The chat expert shows that it can’t really chat. And I really wonder at that 63% after a few years of online gamin I can tell whether a person is a child, teen or adult most of the time. That bot wont even pass as a drunk multitasking human … :S

  • Anonymous

    Hello,everyone,sorry bother your time a min,share a good website with you,

    http:// www. yatoomall .com

    please input the website on your web there,if you do not know,please click my name come

    our company website ,maybe you will find something your like,or

    if you do not interested in,please collect the website on your tag there,thank you!

  • Euryale

    Cleverbot blows.All he does is blabbing and never makes connection between the sentences.If you ask me it’s about 5% human.So,yeah,it’s been a fail so far.

  • Charles

    Yeah, can’t you beat any Turing test algorithm around today just by (instead of asking information or opinions which you can trawl the internet for) asking “what did you say two sentences ago?”

  • adamn rat

    This IS interesting in so many ways, if you are hoping to find the perfect human replacement then of course your going to be disappointed, on the other hand, if you are watching the progress happen, then this is very interesting indeed. Compare this test to others, while minimal work is being done in this field, the progress is happening anyway, and with a little more progress, coupled with the brainwave readers mentioned on TED for eg. and we have a whole new approach. If CleverBot had been more carefully trained, instead of being left to learn from the egotistic dolts out there – then the results would be even more surprising. Time to get serious about the development of this technology, take from the realm of toys, and make tools from it – chat bot type technology is going to play an important part in the next generation of devices.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000463303326 Eric Fleet

    Except it isn’t progress. This is not doing anything to mimic the flow of human thought or conversation. Simply building a database of responses to text might get you to pass this test, but it is a dead end with no hope of progress. Frankly, this chat bot is not much more advanced than the Eliza program I played with in 1981.

  • Dana Oredson

    Agreed. Humans ask questions in response to questions, change the subject, usually with a sequitur. Sometimes a human will completely ignore the conversation for a while, or post multiple responses, rather than a 1-for-1. Not even close to passing the Turing test.

  • Not convinced

    User: I’m just trying to wrap up the interview.

    Cleverbot: Oh ok. So what is your favourite breed of horse?

    User: I fail to see how that matters.

    Cleverbot: What is school?

    What ??? From these replies you conclude that you’re talking to a human ??? I conclude further that IF it was human, he/she is a complete RETARD.

  • NebThron

    Did people not actually read the article? The CleverBot that passed the Turing test was a different one than the model that is publicly available online. That one searched it’s database 42 times as opposed to 3. You can’t take that chat excerpt as an example. Personally, I would like to see the chat log from the Turing test.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000484692300 汤 若辰

    If you are going to use another news article to prove something use something that isn’t plainly written by you! SHAMELESS ADVERTISING, MUCH?

    Anyways I’ll say it again… WHEN YOU GUYS PROGRAM SOMETHING BETTER THAN CLEVERBOT, PLZ post the link here and then insult it to your hearts content… but truly, you aren’t justified to say it’s mentally retarded…

  • Immortalsanchez

    Um isn’t cleverbot NOT a bot at all? I thought that was the one that just connects the user to random people who are also using it at odd intervals to keep the user from talking to the same person for long enough to figure out it’s not a bot?

  • Laszlo Gregovich

    It really isnt that amazing. Thats not to say that its not interesting, the idea of an algorithm that approximates semantic/syntactic components of language, but cleverbot is far from being able to pass the turing test. The example referenced in the article used only 30 conversations. When the scientific community decides that it has passed the turing test, then I will concede that it is amazing. At this point it is noteworthy, interesting, a step in the right direction, but far from amazing. Have a conversation with it yourself. ask it to do something creative, something requiring nuance, and see for yourself if its amazing.

    What would (will) be amazing is the application of unsupervised learning algorithms, which would actually indicate that machines had intelligence, or at least the capability to develop it. At this point, they are just a crude approximation of human intelligence; nothing special.

  • Laszlo gregovich

    Okay dudebro, see the response below by another person posting on this site. It describes the sentiment that most of the skeptical commenters are having trouble putting into words. We arent saying it isnt progress of some sort, but rather that it isnt progress of the right sort:

    “Except it isn’t progress. This is not doing anything to mimic the flow
    of human thought or conversation. Simply building a database of
    responses to text might get you to pass this test, but it is a dead end
    with no hope of progress. Frankly, this chat bot is not much more
    advanced than the Eliza program I played with in 1981.”

    There is not enough research being done right now. Academics can make more money by researching other areas. In fact, a large portion of the research being done in AI right now has direct commercial application, and thus is not necessarily focused on the the fundamental concepts underlying human intelligence. If we had a little more solidarity in terms of research efforts, maybe things would start to change.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501736428 Long Dao

    We’re justified to say it’s mentally retarded because we are humans are know how humans are supposed to hold a train of thought through conversation, which cleverbot cannot. Its purpose is to mimic a human conversation which it can’t do very well, so whether or not – I – have programmed something better than cleverbot is irrelevant. Are you having an affair with cleverbot or something? Shit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501736428 Long Dao

    We’re justified to say it’s mentally retarded because we are humans are know how humans are supposed to hold a train of thought through conversation, which cleverbot cannot. Its purpose is to mimic a human conversation which it can’t do very well, so whether or not – I – have programmed something better than cleverbot is irrelevant. Are you having an affair with cleverbot or something? Shit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrei-Sfrent/100000510580086 Andrei Sfrent

    Yeah, sure. Who evaluated them? The Turing test is this and clearly cleverbot sucks:

    Cleverbot: Hi!
    User: If you like chocolate less than milk but more than bread, which one do you enjoy the most?
    Cleverbot: He isn’t my best friend, though.

    Cleverbot: You said you are a girl.
    User: No.
    Cleverbot: Yes it was.
    User: Who?
    Cleverbot: My name is Cleverbot.

  • Yourmom239

    can cleverbot find a childs location if so we need to put an end to it!

  • Yvonne Comia

    bmg

  • Devon Wenger

    @f6c2c56f4aec194b93d34ba61f5366bf:disqus i dont understand why ur being so immature about CB. if u look on the website itself, it says it learns as u talk to it. its only in beta right now so u cant really judge if it “blows” or not. give it six months, after it has learned some. im sure u’ll be surprised when yuo find out that it is indeed “clever”.

  • Devon Wenger

    well i think ur wrong. its only in beta! haters like u need to understand that!
    ur not gonna see shit right now, but in 6months-year, progress will be made.

  • Devon Wenger

    i agree with u 100%
    also its only in beta so its not fair to critisize so early in the process/.

  • Ro

    Cleverbot made me chuckle a few times.

  • Raven

    It is definitely interesting, at the end of the day Its a program, The most interesting
    part of conversing with CB, is what we as humans have to say.

    One of the questions it asked me, was how could I prove I was human.
    That was relevant, Consider this;

    How could You, prove to a program, your human?

    Thanks, Raven.

  • 4-Bit-Geek

    I wouldn’t even count it at 5%. It’s all gibberish garbage which whatsoever connection to the typed info!!! Yes. I am a bot, but a clever one. Cleverbot is ain’t nothin like me!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002099709239 Filip Nikolic

    They need to add asociations to it so it wont just be a copying machine…it needs to asociate actions with words and maybe combine them to create new ones.

  • mish sunshine

    hye

  • No1

     the true give away is it usually doesnt follow up with another response after the first one, it only goes your response it’s response repeat, no after thought or following up statement. but as the guy mentioned not the one used for the test so cant really judge that one by this standard.

  • Alex

    Don’t you see? They’ve created an automated troll! :D

  • YerKirby

    fuck cleverbot youre retarded if you think its human

  • Bill

    They revealed that Cleverbot was voted to be human 59.3% of the time. Real humans did only slightly better and were assumed to be humans 63.3% of the time.

    Then it failed the Turing Test. It has to convince people more often than humans do in order to pass.