h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Robots and computers and AI things, in films and on telly,
have a set of computery responses to humans, such as
when they dont get what were going on about. History has
shown that a lot of the ethos and atmosphere of this way of
saying stuff has leaken into our real world technology. From
the early days of does not compute or warning,
to modern portrayals that go Im sorry, I dont understand
the question, its all a bit shallow. As if they work in HR.
I think there should be a style baseline for gear that
to people. I for one would welcome a bit of kit that, when
doesnt know whats what, says you what? (or if its in
London, which it can figure out because of technology),
From the baseline response set, it could evolve more
sophisticated and impressive stuff to say.
Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
Most problems with human-machine dialogue are captured in Arthur's conversation with the Nutrimatic Drinks Dispenser (scene 4 in this link) [hippo, Aug 05 2015]
||Part of the problem, and I think the bit we have to solve first, is that computers are always emphatic and definitive in their responses. So when a computer says to you Im sorry, I dont understand the question it means it is 100% incapable of understanding the question and there is no way that given only the information currently available it can comprehend what you're on about. On the other hand if a person were to say Im sorry, I dont understand the question or you wot?, you might say in response Well, what do you think I mean? and the person would make a guess which would be right or wrong, and you could then have a conversation about that. Likewise, in searching for something a computer might say Error: unable to find file - you should be able to click a button to select the option Try harder you stupid machine - I only saved it yesterday!, but you can't because the computer's error message allows to no nuance or room for manoeuvre - it is dogmatic and would be considered arrogant were it to come from a person.
||// it is dogmatic and would be considered arrogant were it to come from a person. //
||Hmmm .... that explains a lot ...
||'Well, I might be able to find the file if I search harder,'
doesn't work because the computer should by default search
as hard as computerly possible.
||And I'd like to submit 'computerly' as my contribution to the
||I think it would be more effective to provide the AI
with a Standard Norfolk Response System. The
advantage of this linguistic tool is that the user
cannot be sure if the speaker has no clue at all, or
is actually giving a useful answer.
Human: Do you think it will rain later?
SNRS: Arr, well, 'tis a rare sheep that knows north!
Human: Uh, yes, I suppose so. And can you tell me
how far I am from Norwich?
SNRS: Arr, well, s'nayz n'every which door, bain't it?
||"I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that right now..."
||// The advantage of this linguistic tool is that the user cannot be sure if the speaker has no clue at all, or is actually giving a useful answer.//
||The Guild of Railway Station Announcers are still making a fortune every year from the royalties on that ...
||I hear they've joined forces with the Guild of Aircraft
Cabin Announcers, to form the Guildvanncementators
||They had electrolytes in the film Idiocracy. More
electrolytes would therefore, according to what you
imply, make a person more capable of doing the same
action identically over and over until it works, if
ever. I hated the film Idiocracy the first time I saw
it, but now each time I see it again I increasively
perceive it as a documentary.
||I like my machines to sound like machines, thank you very