Interestingly, the as-yet unnamed conversational agent is currently an open-source project, meaning that anyone can contribute to the development of the bot’s codebase. The project is still in its earlier stages, but has great potential to help scientists, researchers, and care teams better understand how Alzheimer’s disease affects the brain. A Russian version of the bot is already available, and an English version is expected at some point this year.
Are the travel bots or the weather bots that have buttons that you click and give you some query, artificially intelligent? Definitely, but they are just not far along the conversation axis. It can be a wonderfully designed conversational interface that is smooth and easy to use. It could be natural language processing and understanding where it is able to understand sentences that you structure in the wrong way. Now, it is easier than ever to make a bot from scratch. Also chatbot development platforms like WotNot, Chatfuel, Gupshup make it fairly simple to build a chatbot without a technical background. Hence, making the reach for chatbot easy and transparent to anyone who would like to have one for their business. For more understanding on intelligent chatbots, read our blog.
Chat bot, chatbot or chatterbot, can be found on screens and in the virtual worlds, but also in the real world, for example holographically projected or as physical talking and responding puppet, toy or robot. Often, chat bot appears online and in instant messenger programs such as Windows Live Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger or Google Talk, where a chat bot is part of the buddy, contact or follow list of the human user. Chat bot appears on many other platforms as well, such as social networks (e.g. Facebook), virtual worlds (e.g. Second Life) or mobile devices (e.g. iPhone).
This chatbot aims to make medical diagnoses faster, easier, and more transparent for both patients and physicians – think of it like an intelligent version of WebMD that you can talk to. MedWhat is powered by a sophisticated machine learning system that offers increasingly accurate responses to user questions based on behaviors that it “learns” by interacting with human beings.
However, the revelations didn’t stop there. The researchers also learned that the bots had become remarkably sophisticated negotiators in a short period of time, with one bot even attempting to mislead a researcher by demonstrating interest in a particular item so it could gain crucial negotiating leverage at a later stage by willingly “sacrificing” the item in which it had feigned interest, indicating a remarkable level of premeditation and strategic “thinking.”
If a text-sending algorithm can pass itself off as a human instead of a chatbot, its message would be more credible. Therefore, human-seeming chatbots with well-crafted online identities could start scattering fake news that seem plausible, for instance making false claims during a presidential election. With enough chatbots, it might be even possible to achieve artificial social proof.
In a particularly alarming example of unexpected consequences, the bots soon began to devise their own language – in a sense. After being online for a short time, researchers discovered that their bots had begun to deviate significantly from pre-programmed conversational pathways and were responding to users (and each other) in an increasingly strange way, ultimately creating their own language without any human input.
In 1950, Alan Turing's famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" was published, which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably—on the basis of the conversational content alone—between the program and a real human. The notoriety of Turing's proposed test stimulated great interest in Joseph Weizenbaum's program ELIZA, published in 1966, which seemed to be able to fool users into believing that they were conversing with a real human. However Weizenbaum himself did not claim that ELIZA was genuinely intelligent, and the introduction to his paper presented it more as a debunking exercise: