h a l f b a k e r y
Eureka! Keeping naked people off the streets since 1999.

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# Are You Real Robot Or A Fauxbot?

Have one impossibly complicated division problem memorized to smoke out people in robot costumes.
 (+2) [vote for, against]

I actually did this once. I entered a science museum and was greeted at the door by a guy in a robot costume welcoming the visitors. Being and asshole I said "Are you a real robot?" "Yes". "OK, what's 9,658,234 divided by 734.963.158?" He said "Hey, I'm just a kid volunteering for extra credit." Then I said (again, because I'm an asshole) "Should have just made a number up. I wouldn't have know if it was right or wrong.

But today it's a different game. Robots are questioning US about our human authenticity, We need to point out which pictures have a street sign in them or say what these curvy letters spell to pass their tests.

But what about the reverse, those pesky fouxbots that are serious about getting investors or otherwise impressing people with their non-existent existence?

Take the asshole move I pulled on that poor kid and take it a step further. Memorize the answer.

Ask "OK, what's 9,658,234 divided by 734.963.158" If he says 13.1411131, it's a real robot or somebody very quick with a calculator.

Next step to smoking out a person in a robot costume might be actual smoke.

 — doctorremulac3, Dec 13 2018

Fauxbots in the news. https://inews.co.uk...-in-suit-russia-24/
From Russia. What a shock. [doctorremulac3, Dec 13 2018]

Hoisted by one's own petard https://www.thefree...isted+by+own+petard
[Voice, Dec 14 2018]

Prove you're not a human Capcha https://drive.googl...9pOUKOu-TTpuHSXzjIP
[not_morrison_rm, Dec 17 2018]

 // "what's 9,658,234 divided by 734.963.158?" //

Most actual robots would be confused by that. Those numbers aren't both valid in any one country.
 — notexactly, Dec 13 2018

 We suggest that the result you memorize is derived from something highly specific, like 31.415927, or 9.112001.

It's a good trick. But watch out if the response from the alleged robot is "Molest me not with this pocket-calculator stuff" ...
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

Go one better & ask them an indivisible math problem like divide 1 by 3 then watch them freeze as the calculate the decimals to infinity.
 — Skewed, Dec 13 2018

... and the really smart robot replies, "One-third".
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

As for Boris the dancing robot in your link, that's got to be fake news (the article itself, not Boris the robot), you can clearly see the guys neck in between the helmet & the rest of the costume for bob's sake, which makes any suggestion this was a serious attempt at conning people into believing it was a real robot beyond ludicrous.
 — Skewed, Dec 13 2018

 On the other hand, Boris the dancing politcian is clearly a clumsy attempt to convince the public that a badly constructed semi-anthropomorphic robot is a human being, which is also beyond ludicrous.

 Even Asimo is more convincing ...



 "How can it not know what it is ? "

</Deckard>
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

The cunning thing about Boris the fake robot is that although there _was_ a human inside the robot suit, there was actually a robot inside the human suit.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 13 2018

Ah, like Matryoshka dolls ?
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

Not much. I mean, I don't mind them, but if you're thinking of sending me a Christmas present they wouldn't be my first choice.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 13 2018

That's fine, we'd already got you something else.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

 //the really smart robot replies, "One-third"//

 An imperial robot?

Asimov has the patent on those, so no one else is allowed to build one, my plan should still work, as long as it's not one of his.
 — Skewed, Dec 13 2018

<Notes that [Skewed] seems to confuse "metric" with "decimal", files factoid away for future use/>
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

Dang, hoisted, not sure who's petard that is or where I got it.
 — Skewed, Dec 13 2018

 See if there's a label or a serial number on it anywhere.

But if the fuse is fizzing, we strongly advise you pinch it out first.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 13 2018

Bonus points to the Borg for knowing what a petard is (I used to think it was an item of clothing).
 — Skewed, Dec 14 2018

Thankyou for the attempted flattery, which might in other circumstances be appropriate; but if we didn't know exactly what a petard was (and is), its history, and methods of deployment, we would suffer crippling embarrassment.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 14 2018

<Notes that [8th] can be crippled by embarrassment, files factoid away for future use, feels smug about own utter shamelessness/>
 — Skewed, Dec 14 2018

 As [8th] will doubtless explain in tedious detail, a petard was a very long, flexible pole (usually ash or yew). In battle, the petardistes would rush forward with the petard held in front, aiming to guide it between the legs of a heavily-armoured opponent. They would then dig the far end of the petard (now behind the opposing knight) into the ground, whilst continuing to run forward. The petard would bend into a bow, lifting (or "hoisting") the enemy off the ground and tipping them over backwards.

Misjudged petard attacks could result in the petardiste, instead of the enemy, being lifted by a sort of pole-vaulting effect, whence the expression.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 14 2018

 "... and that's all from tonight's edition of Talking Bollocks. Join us again next time, when [MaxwellBuchanan] will be once again be regailing everyone with yet more convincing yet specious complete and utter rubbish. Goodnight".

Oh, and [Skewed] ... don't get too smug. That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 14 2018

 That which doesn’t make us stronger only kills us.

A petard is a species of duck which was originally put to quack at a height above the yardarm when the sun is downing another glass of mead.
 — Ian Tindale, Dec 14 2018

No, that's a petrel. "A petard is a species of petrel which was originally put to quack ..."
 — 8th of 7, Dec 14 2018

Petrels squawk, not quack.
 — pocmloc, Dec 14 2018

 //smoke out people in robot costumes//

 A costume could hide all sorts of cyborgy stuff. A head with no moving parts e.g. Gort style could hide a microphone and HUD. Switches inside gloves could route answers from numerous AI systems to provide appropriate answers. The human could become little more than a hint system to other AIs.

 "what's 9,658,234 divided by 734.963.158?"

 Both Alexa and a pure speech recognition system have a crack simultaneously. Low confidence is flagged on Alexa output and so the human hints, "Remove all decimal points and re-ask Alexa" (output going to a standard synthetic voice used by Alexa and human).

 But to be honest groups of triple digits are a giveaway to any logic input filter. I'm sure I've coded that a few times, probably in Perl as Regex is a breeze in Perl.

Who knows, as humans adjust to their new role as robot helpers, the interfacing hardware will gradually take on a greater role e.g. locomotion by means of a fully automated robot and the need for any other limbs, bones and the like. Humans could become a blob of brain jelly inside a metal shell.
 — bigsleep, Dec 14 2018

It's called a Dalek.
 — Skewed, Dec 14 2018

 From a galactic conquest point of view (an area in which we have considerable experience and expertise), the bipedal design has a lot of advantages over the sink-plunger-and- giant-pepperpot- on-castors layout, which is why we've - by and large - retained it.

There are exceptions, of course.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 14 2018

We've always favored the mass produced kamikaze neutron bomb in a rocket propelled elongated pepper pot shell variant.
 — Skewed, Dec 14 2018

We are prepared to concede that that design is not without merit.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 14 2018

Hmm, I keep seeing them Capchas with the "Prove your not a human". Link
 — not_morrison_rm, Dec 17 2018

For some reason, that link was already marked visited before I clicked on it. Have you posted it to another idea previously?
 — notexactly, Dec 18 2018

 Yep, but this is a more appropriate slot. So old link + anno deleted.

I'm guessing only a robot would have remembered that detail...so, notexactly, do you have something to tell us?
 — not_morrison_rm, Dec 18 2018

Yes. He'll be back.
 — 8th of 7, Dec 18 2018

You are not the first to see through my human disguise, though perhaps the first online.
 — notexactly, Dec 18 2018

 [annotate]

back: main index