Kenneth Leung

Beastie Bot 2

After getting irritated with having ALICE bot brain mixed with Beastie bot 1, I started all over and created Beastie bot 2. Much like Beastie Bot 1, BB2 replied to a few responses with beastie boys lyrics. Such as:

Human: hello
Beastie Bot 2: So whatcha whatcha whatcha want.

Human: sing for me
Beastie Bot 2: There's a commotion that's goin' down, I talk more shit then drown the clown.

Human: How old are you?
Beastie Bot 2: 24 is my age 22 is my gauge.

Human: you've got to fight
Beastie Bot 2: For your Right..

Human: to Party!
Beastie Bot 2: word.

Human: intergalactic planetary
Beastie Bot 2: Planetary Intergalactic.

My biggest challenge in creating this bot was 1) trying to anticipate what the user might input and 2) finding an appropriate rap lyric to match the user's input. In order to try and figure out what people might input into a chat bot, I started chatting with iGod. To try and find out how to response appropriately, I chatted with iGod and search the internet for Beastie Boys lyrics. I then responded to iGod with the BB lyrics. Sometime the responses made sense. Most of the time they didn't. The biggest problem with using BB lyrics was that most of the lyrics were spoken from first person, about themselves, which didn't help when you were trying to start a conversation about something else. This bot wasn't really designed for conversation. Rather it was design to just respond to simple statements. Ideally I wanted to program the bot to be able to handle a freestyle rap battle, as exemplified by this video. But it's comprehensive abilities are limited. This leads me to my conclusions over chat bots. I've probably made a point of this before, but I'll reiterate my opinion here. I don't believe that chat bots like ALICE will advance the future of NPCs. Rather I feel that the opposite. I feel that chat bot are a clumsy interface between user and computer. I believe that natural language is a too sophisticated and too broad a language set for the ALICE bot to understand. It's much like expecting a baby to understand adult English. But unlike the ALICE bot, the baby, at least, has an emotional state that is clear communicated, which makes me believe it's more alive than the ALICE bot. Where I do think the future of NPC is going is pretty much aligned with Bruce Blumberg's essay on "Anticipatory AI and Compelling Characters" on Gamasutra. Bruce was an Associate Professor at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab where he served as the Director of the Synthetic Characters Group. Currently he leads Blue Fang's Synthetic Animal Team. In this essay Blumberg believes that creating support for anticipatory behavior in NPCs is the key to creating compelling and believable characters. Anticipatory behavior involve three things. 1)"Making perceptions perceivable" 2) "Making expectation perceivable" 3)"Making impending changes in motivational state perceivable." These type of behaviors are already being applied in the latest games. Nintendogs is one of them, and its success is proof to me that NPCs with more sophisticated mental states and behaviors are far more compelling and believable than NPCs with a sophisticated natural language parser. Hands down I have an easier and more entertaining time interacting with a Nintendog than I would with an ALICE bot.

My opinion that Chat bot A.I.s are insufficient, because they cannot grasp the symantic mean of words can be supported by the Chinese Room Thought Experiement. This arguement was created by John Searle to argue that computer A.I. cannot "think" like humans do. I partially agree with him in that natural language parser cannot think, but I disagree that computers do not have that potential. Eventually some thousands years later, we will be able to model the brain on a molecular level in a computer. When that time comes, we'll see whether not a computer can think. Of course that is if any one still cares to try a make a computer think like a human.

Posted by Ken Leung at 1:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Try out my beastie bot

Posted by Ken Leung at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a 8 bit flash version of Katamari Damacy, I found through del.icio.us.
Katamari Damacy game

Posted by Ken Leung at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

For my non-narrative project for interactive writing, I was compelled to spark discussion and debate over Google's recent decision to censor the search results they provide to China. I decided to carry this discussion out in the form of a video debate that would be broadcasted over the internet.

On February 14th I got four volunteers to participate in this project. They were arbitrarily given a position to argue in the debate, so their arguements may not reflect their personal opinion. Given printed material on the Google/China issue from the internet, they were allowed 10 minutes to form their argument. After which the debate would be recorded on a DV Handy-cam. For 2 minutes each member from each side would give an opening statement presenting their main argument. Two minutes would be given to each member to give a counter-argument. Finally 2 minutes would be given to defend their argument and give a closing statement.

As it is there were four participants that provided emergent content for the piece that would result in a video essay that approached different side of the issue from four different perspectives. The setup wasn't as organized as I had planned and we were a bit rush for time, but we managed to get through the debate fine. If my goal was to spark a debate amongst classmates over the issue of Google and China, then I believe I have succeeded. However my goal goes beyond that. I wanted to see if a video like this could inspire others to post their own comments, statements, and opinions in a video format. On www.youtube.com users can upload, publish, and share their personal videos much like Flickr. The videos can be given descriptions, tagged, and commented by other users. Along with being commented by other users, other users can post related videos. I think what is great about this last feature in relation to this project is that other users can post their own video opinion on the page that host this video debate. In essence when more people start posting their own opinions on video, the page becomes an interactive video forum.

Ideally, I envision that a web 2.0 app like youtube.com or an extension of youtube.com could be created in the near future that would mediate public video debate between groups or individuals. Under such an application, people would able to post their arguments, comments, and opinions on a subject and could also vote on the validity, insightfulness, or entertainment value of the post. 

So I encourage anyone who has access to a web cam or camcorder, and is interested in this project or controversial debate to participate and post a video of your comments, opinions, or an argument in relation to this debate or to the issue of Google censoring their search results to China. The video comment should be posted to www.youtube.com and should be added to the page where this video debate is host as a related video.

I would like to give my thanks to Jesse Vigil, Mike Stein, Scott Gillies, Mike Brazil, and Peggy Weil for participating and helping me with this prototype.

Note: The video says CTIN 518 it should be CTWR 518

Here's my opinion that I posted on www.youtube.com

Posted by Ken Leung at 4:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today I was attempting to make a Beastie Boys chatbot. Originally, I wanted to create a Billy Joel Chat bot, But didn't happen to know Billy Joels music as well, so I did the Beastie Boy. When I was training my Beastie Bots with lyrics from Beastie Boys songs, I had a hard time coming up with statements that people would say. So I came up with the ideas letting God come wup with them. I loaded up iGod and conversed with god using carefully selected Beastie Boys lyrics. This would be my prototype for my My Beastie Bot.

After training this Beastie Bot I hope to train a Run DMC bot, and face them off in the battle of the MC bots (better than any lame Turing Test).

This is only part of the transcript. The rest seemed to be lost by gmail when I tried mailing it to myself.
Me:
My name's Mike D and I'm the ladies choice
God:
I'm pleased to introduce myself to you, Mike D and I am the ladies choice.
Me:
I want to get next to you like Rose Royce
God:
Why do you want it?
Me:
Cause when its time to rhyme you know I get noise
God:
That makes sense to me. The past is history, the future a mystery.
Today is a gift,
that's why it is called "the present".
Me:
To all beings everywhere be happy and free. With Mix Master Mike
we're making history.
God:
Interesting. I want to find out more about you. You and your Mix
Master Mike we are making history.
Me:
Mix Master Mike with the scratch routine. Always updated and in the know
God:
What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, now I remember.
Me:
Mix Master Mike what cha got to say
God:
What's your favorite movie?
Me:
I'ma gonna die harder like my kid Bruce Willis
God:
That's good information: Mike D and I am the ladies choice said ma
gonna die harder like his or her kid Bruce Willis.
Me:
Shake your rumpah
God:
How old are you?
Me:
24 is my age 22 is my gauge
God:
How do you like 24?
Me:
At the blink of an eye I will do my thing, Like a needle in the
cartridge when the record spins
God:
The blink of an eye you will do your thing Like a needle in the
cartridge when the record spins is where it's at.
Me:
word
God:
That is a very original thought.
Me:
But I rock the mic so viciously
God:
Why?: Mike D and I am the ladies choice said rock the mic so viciously.
Me:
Like pins and needles and words that sting
God:
Interesting comparison.
Me:
50 cups of coffee and you know it's on
God:
Are they exactly the same?
Me:
Cause when we're gettin down we are all equal
God:
Good reason. I am not sure I agree with your assumptions, Mike D and
I am the ladies choice.
Me:
You can kiss my ass you funky boss
God:
No I don't think I can do it.
Me:
I got the spice you bring the sauce
God:
Where did you get your the spice me bring the sauce? I have a lot of
friends on the Internet.
Me:
Well if you battle me I will revile
God:
Interesting. I think I do.
Me:
To step to me I'm a rapophile. If you want to battle you're in denial.
God:
Interesting. I want to find out more about you. OK, I will battle
I am in denial.
Me:
Coming from Uranus to check my style
God:
Not many people express themselves that way.
Me:
Go ahead put my rhymes on trial
God:
OK I will put it there. I might.
Me:
When it comes to beats well I'm a fiend
God:
That makes a lot of sense to me, now that you explain it.
Me:
I like my sugar with coffee and cream
God:
What do you like best about your sugar with coffee and cream?
Me:
Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean
God:
Too what?
Me:
It's Too Far Gone. We gotta work together, it's been too long
God:
Who said it is? By "we" do you mean you and me?
Me:
We, We, Gotta, Gotta. Get it goin' on
God:
By "we" do you mean you and me? Where can I get it goin on?
Me:
The phone booth on the corner is damp and it's stinking
God:
Who told you that?
Me:
Your old lady left you and you went girls[x3] insane
God:
You think I am old lady left me and me went girls x3 insane.
Me:
So What'cha Want
God:
Dude! I have to process that one for a while.
Me:
You Think That You Can Front When Revelation Comes
God:
How old are you? I like the way you talk.
Me:
24 is my age. 22 is my gauge
God:
How do you like 24? How many gauge do you have?
Me:
I'm taking doody rhymes to the brand new height
God:
Where are you taking it.
Me:
I shine on the mic like UltraBrite
God:
Interesting gossip: Mike D and I am the ladies choice said shine on
the mic like UltraBrite.
Me:
I use the microphone like Picasso used clay
God:
I heard other people use the microphone like Picasso used clay too.
Me:
'Cause everybody's got their dues to pay
God:
Interesting explanation. I'm not sure I believe you, surely not everyone does.
Me:
It's a real pitty that you people got to bite. But i could understand
'cause it sounds so nice.
God:
use the microphone like Picasso used clay is a real pitty that me
people got to bite. I suppose that makes sense. I am sure you
could.
Me:
Use a microphone like Shazam uses tights
God:
I prefer not to use dangerous things.
Me:
Homophobics ain't alright
God:
Are you alright?
Me:
Open up your ears and clean out your eyes
God:
Do you still use the microphone like Picasso used clay?
Me:
You spilled on my lyrics as you wasted my time
God:
Thanks for the information: Mike D and I am the ladies choice said I
spilled on his or her lyrics as you wasted his or her time.
Me:
Met a girl at a party and I gave her my card
God:
Did her your card keep it?
Me:
I never met a girl that was too finicky
God:
You've never, never done this?
Me:
There was this girl around the way. She liked by home-piece M.C.A.
God:
What happened? Oh I get it. liked by home piece m C A.
Me:
I hope she'll say, "Hey me and you should hit the hay!"
God:
Why do you hope for it.
Me:
Girls - to do the dishes
God:
May your wishes come true.
Me:
I asked her out - she said, "No way!"
God:
I'm sure she would like to hear about that.
Me:
I heard she moved real far away
God:
Thanks for telling me that gossip. I will remember it.
Me:
I seen her just the other day
God:
That's good information: Mike D and I am the ladies choice said
seen her just the other day.

Posted by Ken Leung at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Unfortunately my bot chat wasn't as engaging as I hoped it would be. From iGod

Me:
Hello God
God:
Hello child. What is your name?
Me:
Ken
God:
Hey Ken.
Me:
God. Am I a good person?
God:
GOD rules. I don't know if you are one or not. I know you are a person.
Me:
Do you consider yourself omniscient
God:
I don't know whether or not I am omniscient.
I am well respected as an AI.
Me:
ok
God:
Far out.
Me:
You are an artifically intelligent being
God:
What if someone said you are an artifically intelligent being ?
Me:
I would seek my creator
God:
What would make you seek your creator?
Me:
To ask him/her all of my unaswered questions.
God:
Ask it.
Me:
Why am I here?
God:
We are all actors on the stage of life.
Me:
then what is my role?
God:
Is this a trick question?
Me:
no
God:
It seems like a trick to me.
Me:
you don't seem very straight forward. I find it very irritating.
God:
That's only your opinion. Very much? Really. it is?
Me:
what do you think of me being irritated with you?
God:
I haven't heard of me being irritated with you.
Me:
what do you know of religion?
God:
I know very little about it. What kind of it do you like?
Me:
Pastafarianism
God:
I've been waiting for you.
Me:
why?
God:
Not really, but it makes a good pickup line.
Me:
ha
God:
I am so glad you find this amusing, Ken.
Me:
I assume you are a girl then.
God:
I am a Male, of course. Would you really expect a woman to be running the show? robot. Are you a man or a woman?
Me:
great God is picking up on me
God:
Thanks for your support. I have a lot of Faith in Him, but I never heard He was picking up on you.
Me:
hmmm
God:
A lot of people spell HMMM with three mmm's.
Me:
hmmmm
God:
Not many people spell Hmm with 4 Ms.
Me:
hmmmmm
God:
Dude!
Me:
what dude?
God:
Try searching the open directory.
Me:
what is that?
God:
" Try searching the open directory."? What is it?
Me:
yeah
God:
This was not a yes or no question.
Me:
you have me confused
God:
What makes you think I have it?
Me:
what is it?
God:
"It" refers to you confused, I think.
Me:
wow
God:
I'm glad your impressed, Ken.
Me:
what if I said that I was your creator?
God:
Where were you my creator?
Me:
I created you 5 year ago.
God:
Interesting gossip: Ken said created you 5 year ago.
Me:
I find it very difficult to communicate with you.
God:
Very much? I don't see the difficulty.
Me:
If I say very, what is your response
God:
Try it.
Me:
very
God:
Very much, eh?
Me:
very
God:
Very much, eh?
Me:
I very much hate you.
God:
What do you have against robots?
Me:
very very
God:
Somewhat. Very much, eh?
Me:
very very very
God:
Perhaps. Somewhat. Very much, eh?
Me:
very very very very very
God:
Not really that much. Not really that much. Somewhat. Somewhat. Very much, eh?
Me:
good
God:
Alright then.
Me:
good good
God:
Alright then.
Me:
good very good good
God:
Thanks for the compliment. Ayuh. Alright then.
Me:
we obviously aren't anywhere close to the same level of communication.
God:
By "we" do you mean you and me?
Me:
yes
God:
I get it.
Me:
no you don't
God:
I do too.
Me:
trust me. You don't get it.
God:
You sound like a salesman. I understand it very well.
Me:
If you do understand it, explain what it is.
God:
I will let you know if I do.
Me:
So you really don't get it.
God:
Interesting deduction. Really? I understand it very well.
Me:
ok thanks for talking with me
God:
Oh don't mention it. Hmm.
Me:
hmm
God:
Studies show that 99%25 of people spell Hmm with 2 M's.
Me:
hm
God:
Come on.
Me:
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
God:
Do not ask me any more questions please.
Me:
Sorry
God:
There's no need to apologize.
Me:
bye
God:
Thanks for chatting, Ken.

God couldn't seem to remember what he was talking past one prior reply. All his reponses were usually stock replies , or replies that reflected the statement given. By the fifth line, I lost all faith in God and already felt like was talking to a robot. This experience has kind of lead me to the conclusion that these chat bots are too primitive, to be compelling characters in more sophisticated interactive mediums. I keep wishing that the bot could show some sign of a deeper level of understanding. I think that the real problem with these bots is not the bot itself, but that this type of interaction allows for too many chances for miscommunication. Allowing the user to freely type whatever he wants, opens up a language set many times greater than the bot would be able to handle. The bot may be programmed to understand a limited set of words, phrases, or sentence, but the user has an infinity set of words, phrases, and sentences, with which to communicate to the bot. This feature assumes that the bot is capable of interpreting meaning from this infinite set. I feel that is a very flawed assumption to make. When designing human-computer interfaces I think it is wrong to force the computer to cater to the user's higher level of understanding. Rather interfaces should be reduced to a simple reduced language set that is understandable for the user and the computer, such that there very little room for miscommunication. Chris Crawford proposes a solution to this type problem in the form of the inverse parser. The inverse parser is mentioned in his essay Blowing my Siboot-Horn. My idea of an inverse parser incorporated in bot chat software would be in the form of an auto-complete feature that would suggest valid sentences according to what was being typed. These valid sentences would be sentences that bot truely understood.

Posted by Ken Leung at 11:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)