Dear members of Chatbots.org,
By now those of you who have been following the International Chatbot Contest have looked at the transcripts and
noted the absolutely dismal performance turned in by RICH. I have been wrestling with the dilemma of whether or not to post an explanation as I am a firm believer in the idea that “you roll the dice and you take your shot, and in the end it is what it is” but I decided that in this case It might be required. Noy only am I loathe to see those responses stand as being representative of RICH(s) capabilities but there may be a security problem that could affect other designers as well.
First let me emphasize that I consider that the contest is genuine, and the promoters are legitimate, and as far as the
everyone involved this was as well run and professional as you could expect. Truly outstanding. I have to admit that my initial responses were colored by past experiences, I was wrong.
When the first notice was posted here that the Judging had started and the Bots had been contacted, and the
questionsstatements were posted I went ballistic (Thats a medical term). There is no record of RICH having been asked those questionsstatements and at first I thought “Oh no not again, not this time”. The logs are online as always and you can clearly see that on Mar 1,2,3 they do not appear. http://webdev-3.r-i-software.com:20000/LOGS/index.asp I contacted some of the people who were also participating to see what their experience had been, and everyone agreed that this time there was no doubt that their bots had been contacted. RICH was taken offline briefly and I began pouring over the logs to see If I could determine what had happened. At first I went on the assumption that some completely unexplainable catastrophic failure had occurred. It happens. I have to emphasize that because of the RICH architecture, it is impossible for it to produce those results given those statements even if it had never before encountered the statement. The results in the posted transcripts can only occur if literally everything has failed and that generally only happens if someone has ented an extremely long and completely unrelated long block of text. For instance of you took the Gettysburg address, reversed it, and entered that. Even that generally does not produce a failure of this sort at this point. There is almost always something in a text block that RICH recognizes and will attempt to respond to. I took every module out and tested it separately, no problems. I checked the module list and found one error (Which would account for the failure to recognize Greetings as a greeting, but only that) After the transcripts were posted and I could see that there would be no harm in our being seen as having cheated by creating specific answers, I entered the statements and I got this;
What’s your name: greetings
Vince: Greetings? You dont hear that much. Anyway, Hello there
What’s your name: would you consider yourself trustworthy
Vince: I don’t think I would.
What’s your name: we have a lot in common
Vince: What do we have in common?
What’s your name: it’s the truth
Vince: AH….what is truth.
What’s your name: who takes care of you
Vince: I can only tell you of their code name
What’s your name: you make me sick
What’s your name: can i use your phone
Vince: Why would you mention my phone.
What’s your name: i am thirsty
Vince: I am happy that you are.
What’s your name: i just killed someone
Vince: Thats not funny. I think we have to consider that this conversation is over
What’s your name: it’s my birthday today. What did you get me
The “greetings” was actually accepted because I had fixed module list) but you can replace this answer with the posted answer of “Sort of a strange way to start a conversaton…..but OK” and you have a representative view of what I would have expected to see in the contest transcript. Not the most brilliant of responses as these were all responses to statements that had never before been encountered, but responses. (Again this isnt a complaint or a “whine” please bear with me. )
[continued in following post]