Chatterbot- example
Piotr Zbyszyński
I'm looking for source code (I prefer JAVA, C#) of SIMPLE chatterbot. Could
anybody point me some links- will by very grateful.
Thanks in advance, greetings.
Arthur T. Murray
Tristan Miller
In article <btjp1v$l8r$1...@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>, Piotr Zbyszyński wrote:
> I'm looking for source code (I prefer JAVA, C#) of SIMPLE chatterbot.
> Could anybody point me some links- will by very grateful.
Have you browsed through the ODP's chatterbot listing? Not all of the
programs include source code, but some of them certainly do:
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Artificial_Intelligence/Natural_Language
Chatterbots/
Freshmeat and Sourceforge are good places to look for Free software (i.e.,
software which gives you the freedom to modify and redistribute the source
code). I typed in "chatterbot" in the sites' respective search boxes and
got several hits, including some for Java programs:
http://sourceforge.net/
http://freshmeat.net/
CMU has a repository of "classic" AI programs, including Eliza and Parry
(probably the first two chatterbots ever made), plus a clone of the popular
DOS chatterbot Racter:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/ai-repository/ai/areas
classics/
Eliza and Parry are both very simple, which fits your criteria quite nicely.
Rather than reading the source code, which is written in Lisp, you might
wish to simply read the descriptions of their algorithms, which can be
found in, among other places, Natural Language Understanding by Allen
(Addison-Wesley, 1994) and Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical
Introduction by Copeland (Blackwell, 1993). Both these texts are aimed at
students with little or no prior knowledge of programming or linguistics.
By the way, pay no attention to the poster who previously responded. He's
interested only in promoting his own incomprehensible system and is widely
regarded in this newsgroup as a kook.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
Amnon Meyers
> [snip]
> By the way, pay no attention to the poster who previously responded. He's
> interested only in promoting his own incomprehensible system and is widely
Always good to know that objective science is alive and well on the newsgroups.
Amnon
Tristan Miller
In article <f6fd8c4a.0401...@posting.google.com>, Amnon Meyers
wrote:
No offence, but exactly what is it with you and your propensity to act as an
apologist for Mr. Murray? This is the second or third time I recall you
doing this. It's not as though you're acting as an overt shill for his
vanity-published book, but it seems that when someone points out Murray's
quackery, you immediately leap to the conclusion that their opinion is not
the result of an objective assessment.
The original poster is, of course, free to make his own independent
assesment of Muray's work. I was merely suggesting to him not to waste his
time.
Amnon Meyers
> Greetings.
>
> In article <f6fd8c4a.0401...@posting.google.com>, Amnon Meyers
> wrote:
> > Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> wrote in message
> > news:<2528217.I...@ID-187157.news.dfncis.de>...
> >> [snip]
> >> By the way, pay no attention to the poster who previously responded.
> >> He's interested only in promoting his own incomprehensible system and is
> >> widely
> >> [snip]
> >
> > Always good to know that objective science is alive and well on the
> > newsgroups.
>
> No offence, but exactly what is it with you and your propensity to act as an
> apologist for Mr. Murray? This is the second or third time I recall you
> doing this. It's not as though you're acting as an overt shill for his
> vanity-published book, but it seems that when someone points out Murray's
> quackery, you immediately leap to the conclusion that their opinion is not
> the result of an objective assessment.
>
> The original poster is, of course, free to make his own independent
> assesment of Muray's work. I was merely suggesting to him not to waste his
> time.
>
> Regards,
> Tristan
Looking back, I do find another defense of mine against an attack on
Mr. Murray. I haven't read the book in question and would not presume
to comment either for or against. Telling us that you found his work
incomprehensible can mean many things: (a) it was too advanced or
removed from your expertise, (b) you didn't give it much of a look,
(c) it was truly abstruse or disorganized.
Disagreeing with or disliking someone's work and claims is not a
pretext for personal attacks, which in any case serve no purpose.
Research in new directions is fraught with peril, not the least of
which is ridicule by the mob.
Amnon
Tristan Miller
In article <f6fd8c4a.04011...@posting.google.com>, Amnon Meyers
wrote:
> Looking back, I do find another defense of mine against an attack on
> Mr. Murray. I haven't read the book in question and would not presume
> to comment either for or against. Telling us that you found his work
> incomprehensible can mean many things: (a) it was too advanced or
> removed from your expertise, (b) you didn't give it much of a look,
> (c) it was truly abstruse or disorganized.
In the context of my comment about his kookiness, (c) is the only reasonable
interpretation. I don't see how my qualification of his work as
"incomprehensible" could possibly be regarded as ambiguous in the manner
you describe.
> Disagreeing with or disliking someone's work and claims is not a
> pretext for personal attacks,
I couldn't agree more. But my disapproval of Mr. Murray's work is not the
basis for my opinion that he is a crank. That opinion is based mostly on
his voluminous Usenet posting history -- almost ten years now -- in which
he has repeatedly promoted, but not once scientifically defended, his
so-called AI book and its "Mentifex" theory of how computer viruses can be
transmitted through the human brain. Though his favourite haunts are the
AI-related newsgroups, he has posted hundreds, or possibly thousands, of
off-topic self-promotion messages to completely unrelated groups in nearly
every major Usenet hierarchy. Some people have produced evidence that he
uses sock puppet accounts to shill for his work.
And anyway, "kook" and "crank" aren't necessarily personal attacks. They're
well-defined terms which refer to a person who believes or pretends to have
knowledge of some subject, actively seeks to speak authoritatively about
it, and makes unsupported claims that outrageously conflict with widely
accepted scientific results. Since you're such a champion of objective
judgment I invite you to scientifically test these three criteria yourself
and report back with your findings. I promise it won't take you long.
> Research in new directions is fraught with peril, not the least of
> which is ridicule by the mob.
Who is making subjective judgments now? I wouldn't deign to call Mr.
Murray's work "research" by any stretch of the term.
Amnon Meyers
> [snip]
Tristan,
You've explained your position, so I'm content to leave it where it stands.
Regards,
Amnon
Piotr Zbyszyński
Piotr Zbyszynski