-->
cc andrealindenbergNigel Leck, a software developer by day, was tired of arguing with anti-science crackpots on Twitter. So, like any good programmer, he wrote a script to do it for him.
The result is the Twitter chatbot @AI_AGW. Its operation is fairly simple: Every five minutes, it searches twitter for several hundred set phrases that tend to correspond to any of the usual tired arguments about how global warming isn't happening or humans aren't responsible for it.
It then spits back at the twitterer who made that argument a canned response culled from a database of hundreds. The responses are matched to the argument in question -- tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun.
The database began as a simple collection of responses written by Leck himself, but these days quite a few of the rejoinders are culled from a university source whom Leck says he isn't at liberty to divulge.
Like other chatbots, lots of people on the receiving end of its tweets have no idea they're not conversing with a real human being. Some of them have arguments with the chatbot spanning dozens of tweets and many days, says Leck. That's in part because AI_AGW is smart enough to run through a list of different canned responses when an interlocutor continues to throw the same arguments at it. Leck has even programmed it to debate such esoteric topics as religion - which is where the debates humans have with the bot often wind up.
"If [the chatbot] actually argues them into a corner, it tends to be two crowds out there," says Leck. "There's the guns and God crowd, and their parting shot will be 'God created it that way' or something like that. I don't know how you answer that."
The second crowd, Leck says, are skeptics so unyielding they won't be swayed by any amount of argumentation.
Occasionally, the chatbot turns up a false positive - for example, it has a complete inability to detect sarcasm. This proved to be a problem when a record heat wave hit L.A. last summer, causing innumerable tweets of the form "It's 113 degrees outside - good thing global warming's a myth!"
Leck always apologizes when AI_AGW answers someone who isn't actually arguing about the science of climate change and then subsequently whitelists his or her account. The bot also has a kind of learning algorithm in it in that can be trained not to respond to phrases that cause false positives.
In the future, Leck would like to expand AI_AGW by giving it the ability to learn new arguments from the twitter feeds of others who debate climate skeptics - allowing it to argue into the ground an ever expanding array of anti-science tweeters who are unwilling or unable to look up the proper scientific literature themselves.
In a way, what Leck has created is a pro-active search engine: it answers twitter users who aren't even aware of their own ignorance.
E-mail Print Favorite Share
Are 'Patent Trolls' the Secret Heroes of the Tech World?
eric25001
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 13 Comments
Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Not much differance. Few on either side have an open mind or can discuss the issue. To use the phrase anti-science nonsense is ad hominem and shows that the reporter lacks an open mind or science background and cares little for the truth, accuracy, or the facts.
howiem
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 12 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
People like Mims are the pseudo scientists, because when they say something it cannot be wrong, even when it turns out to be wrong. I read his article that the Global Warming fruitcakes have no argument so they use a software puppet. One would expect no less.
Calling those who do not agree with you names like "crackpots" is not exactly the way to convince skeptics that the "Warmers" aren't just a bunch petty demagogues. If the "Warmers" have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding things?
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
And I read his article as a prime example of finding a resource allocation problem and fixing it. There is a REASON why "profiling" systems work so well -- because they DO detect characteristic patterns. And when a particular pattern says "here is someone who has a belief, an opinion, but no basis for that position", the solution to an ongoing disagreement is to automate the citation in response of pertinent facts. No "puppet" involved -- more like a teacher recording a lesson plan and automating the "here's what you don't know" lesson.
I CAN see how that might seem condescending -- to imply that someone's hard-fought pseudo-"rational" arguments are about as predictable as playing tic-tac-toe... But statistically speaking, there are VERY few original arguments still waiting to be made.
Do I pass my Turing test??
nigel.leck
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
If you were told "The Sun is causing GW as Neptune is also warming", you think well that's interesting and then go look it up and find "Neptune's orbit is 164 years so seasonal plus the sun is in a low activity phase" unless any more evidence is presented the answer this argument would remain and really shouldn't be a matter of opinion.
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
Re: "anti-science nonsense"...
It's fairly obvious that YOU have never been "pinned to a wall" by someone speaking nonsense, TRYING to discuss something waay outside of their grasp... Have to wonder what your cut-off threshold is, at what point YOU say "Sure. You're right. Excuse me, I have to go watch some paint dry."
If you have NOT ever experienced that dubious joy, I have an aether-wave-theory proponent you should meet. Or maybe you would prefer to debate Standard Relativity and the invalidity of physics with another individual I'd be happy to distract with YOUR availability. Who knows -- if you enjoy reading comic books and conspiracy theories, you might enjoy their conversation.
Personally, I vote for the increasingly common "Ignore" button as the best option for reducing background clutter and inane demands upon my time.
Here's to not seeing you later.
bilkie
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
How is Leck "pinned in a corner?" Seems to me he's just a spammer. The script would be just as effective if it took the other side of the debate and "wore down" "pro-science" commentators by flooding them with a set of canned responses. Maybe someone should do just that; but let Leck and Anti-Leck get a room where the scripts can duke it out without filling Twitter with useless drivel. (Oops too late.)
flared0ne
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 328 Comments
EXCELLENT point. Except proponents on the other side of the argument (specifically the "under-informed" category he is doing battle with) don't HAVE an equivalent set of supporting citations they CAN use in a counter-barrage. THAT is the whole POINT.
I hypothesize that his intentions are "for the public good" -- except studies have shown that to "encourage" behavior is much more effective than "educating" and then EXPECTING good behavior. And his approach IS definitely aligned toward provoking more of a scientific method, providing peer-reviewed citations to clarify misunderstandings... Which goes over big (not) with the most typical rednecks.
I can see it now: "The Match of the Century"
between SmartA-Leck and The Anti-Leck-tual...I don't insist he's found a viable solution to anything -- but I'll bet on two things: a) we WILL see more automata like this and b) we will never be able to fully trust twitter stats ever again.
StupidPeasant
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 82 Comments
The quantity of opposing data may be inversely related to the quantity of funding for researching supporting data. If you seek to test by disproving a theory that has a great deal of political, philosophical and monetary potential for the types that run universities or political parties, you might not get the money you want. Is that possible?
nigel.leck
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
I would suggest that http://www.heartland.org is already doing that.
jpontin
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
I take bilkie's point - but as flaredone notes, there is a subtle difference between Leck's bot and a hypoethetical climate-change denialist bot that would assert there is no athropogenic change. Leck's bot generates references and citations to published research that refute denialist claims.
See: "...Tweets about how Neptune is warming just like the earth, for example, are met with the appropriate links to scientific sources explaining why that hardly constitutes evidence that the source of global warming on earth is a warming sun."
zdzisiekm
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Neither the reporter, nor the programmer in question are scientists for starters. To label scientists critical of AGW mantra "proponents of anti-science nonsense" shows ignorance. Prof. Lindzen of MIT has authored 235 refereed papers and is an outstanding scientist, yet he remains critical of AGW and for a good reason: the hypothesis is not confirmed by observation. In science, you see, this invalidates the hypothesis.
jpontin
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
Prof. Lindzen does not, in fact, doubt that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, nor that the earth has warmed. Rather, he says we do not know a variety of things: the possible contributions of other causes and possible alleviations from other factors, and therefore the range of possible temperature changes. Yet, he is always the example cited by skeptics of someone who doubts anthropogenic global warming. Do you have other citations, please, of climate scientists who have basic reservations about the fact of global warming, and the contribution of greenhouse gasses?
cripdyke
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Mindless chatbot; Mindless reporter
@ eric who said:
To use the phrase anti-science nonsense is ad hominem and shows that the reporter lacks an open mind or science background and cares little for the truth, accuracy, or the facts.
=============================================O, g37 r33lz!!!11!1
u r proving urself unAbl 2 p0st heerz
-as unable as someone who thinks l337sp33k is simply a lack of typing skill.
Don't use "ad hominem" if you don't know what it means. Here's a hint: it's not latin for failing to take someone's argument seriously.
Calling anti-science nonsense, like "as soon as you put this cracker in your mouth it will magically transform into muscle-y goodness with the DNA of some guy who died a bunch of centuries ago, but still somehow taste and feel like a cracker," anti-science nonsense is not ad hominem to all christians.
[One clue that is true? No christians were actually named in the quote]And, y'know, there's scientific proof that crackers don't transform into meat into people's mouths - human meat, delicious maguro, steak tartare or any other kind.
Now that quote is anti-religion, and specifically anti-Christian-theology. But it's not ad hominem.
Just because your argument is shredded at the end of a debate doesn't mean someone insulted you. Just because your hypothesis is proved right doesn't make you better than anyone else.
Information can be true or false, persuasive or nonsense without saying anything at all about the quality of any person who has allowed such information to pass through that person's mind.
Now I've made an argument that your statement that the phrase is "ad hominem" is anti-latin nonsense.
That doesn't mean I'm smarter than you or that I can get more dates for a Saturday night or that I can run the 110-meter hurdles 7 times faster than you (or, frankly, *at all*!!!).
It means somewhere along the way, either you got a very incorrect impression of the meaning of ad hominem or that, in a moment of commenting, you got careless or confused with which latin phrase you meant to say. That's it.
If we can't say that 2+2=896 is anti-math nonsense without someone whinging that we are being insulting, then we can't develop vaccines or build cell-phones or...y'know, *program computers to create networks that allow people to comment on articles*.
I prefer the world we've got, thank you very much.
Shine
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 22 Comments
Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Hah clever. I was wondering when something like this would show up. I am sure it'll get some people to question their sources. It would be cool if they made one to respond to creationism, homeopathy etc.
jturnbull
- 1 Day Ago
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Is this clever or a form of high tech bulling? My army of Chatbots will beat you down for ever expressing an opinion different than mine.
cripdyke
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 50 Comments
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Bullying?
I think you truly misunderstand what bullying is.
The answer to bad speech is not censorship, it is good speech.
This is a way to respond to Twit's who put *erroneous information into the public sphere*.
Everytime misinformation is put out there, CORRECT information is immediately appended to the discussion.
The truth is that the original poster is unlikely to be convinced...but this makes it much less likely that corners of the twitterverse can be filled with bad information *only*... which means that readers of a thread will get exposure to good info when bad info might otherwise make an open-minded person lean in the direction of believing something truly false.
The side effect is that if the original poster keeps posting that the bot will also keep posting. But this is not bullying anymore than the law against false commercial speech "My toothpaste will cause teeth you lost in an accident to regrow! Magically! For Reelz!" is disallowed by law. If you say that you can be fined or arrested or go to jail.
Is that bullying? That's *way* worse than having someone say, "Actually, there's a journal article that disproves your line of argument."
What if someone has a religious belief that they can magically regrow teeth & that if the toothpaste doesn't regrow someone's teeth, it's because that idjit didn't "believe on the Lord ToofFairree" hard enuf?
Now you're arresting someone for expressing their religious beliefs. Isn't that bullying? - according to your definition, it would pretty much have to be, wouldn't it?
Why don't we concede that bullying involves actual harmful actions - and actual intent to harm - whether psychologically harmful "You are a bad dresser and have an atavistically dense eyelash-per-linear-inch count!" or physically harmful, like putting tacks on someone's chair.
Imagine a person is leaving flyers all over a neighborhood that say, "there is no so thing as red/green colorblindness because there's no difference between red & green! I've lived my whole life & never saw any evidence that red & green are actually different colors!"
...Would it be bullying to come along 5 minutes later - late enough that they never saw you actually following them - and left flyers that said, "actually, there's plenty of difference that there is a difference between red light & green light. Here are some scientific articles that demonstrate how light has different wavelengths, opsins in the eyes have several different chemical compositions, different opsins are sensitive to different wavelengths & finally that in experiments some people are able to distinguish numbers in a field of red & green & some aren't & it appears the difference is that some see it all as one color, but most see the green dots separately from the red, which allows them to see the green dots form a number"?
This is the behavior we're talking about.
he's even scrupulously honest in telling everyone that it's "AI" doing it.
Your definition would make it immoral to simply state that someone saying 2+2=78 is wrong.
Tomato Addict
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Cripdyke's comments should be added into the chatbot's program for the next time someone misuses "ad hominem".
There was a recent XKCD comic on a related topic: http://xkcd.com/810/
Essentially, if people are not capable of making comments that can't be addressed by an automated system, they might deserve to be filtered out as "not helpful". Even Answers In Genesis - the source of many really bad arguments about evolution - has a list of arguments that should never be used.
danlgarmstrong
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 21 Comments
Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense
Interesting concept. I wonder if it could be used politically.
One *good* use might be a supercomputer scanning websites for *standard* jihadist propaganda, and replying with a quote the koran to rebut the poster.
Probably more examples where this could be put to *bad* use.
dcpalmer
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
Has the author's chatbot encountered an anti-science crackpot chat-box? Did they get into some kind of 24-7 infinite loop argument? It would serve them right.
Come to think of it, such a chat-bot could someday replace Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow. That would be progress.
nigel.leck
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 3 Comments
Re: Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
The answer would be no as it records what it has already said and will not repeat it.
omnologos
- Today
- 11/03/2010
- 1 Comment
Re: Proponent of Anti-Science Chatbot
All you'll need is another chatbot clever enough to disguise repetitions, and there you'll get the 24/7 infinite chatloop.
=========
My impression of this whole affair is that the joke will ultimately be on the bot's creator. If you can be replaced by a mindless machine, what does that tell people about your reasoning skills?
If a bot can sustain your argument despite being devoid of critical thinking, what should one conclude about your own critical thinking?
Yes, there is a vast literature in favor of AGW, and one can go around fishing for whatever pro-AGW statement one could ever wish for. There is even a website cataloging everything that is supposed to be linked to AGW, and that means literally everything, and its opposite. What has that _quantity_ got to do with proper science, I will never understand.
Remember Einstein..."wieso hundert Autoren?"...
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense - Technology Review
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment