Timmy C. May carries a turd in his wallet for identification purposes. _ _/| \'o.0' =(___)= Timmy C. May U
Graham-John Bullers wrote:
Vulis time to take your pills.
I am not a native English speaker, and am curious about something. Mr. GB does not put a comma after "Vulis", although I think that a standard English practice is to do so. That makes his messages look kinda cute. I wonder whether there is any hidden meaning in omitting commas in this case. thanks igor
On Wed, 12 Mar 1997, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:
Timmy C. May carries a turd in his wallet for identification purposes.
_ _/| \'o.0' =(___)= Timmy C. May U
- Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Graham-John Bullers wrote:
Vulis time to take your pills.
I am not a native English speaker, and am curious about something. Mr. GB does not put a comma after "Vulis", although I think that a standard English practice is to do so. That makes his messages look kinda cute. I wonder whether there is any hidden meaning in omitting commas in this case.
It was obvious to me (a native speaker) early on that the messages from GB referring to Dr. Vulis were auto-generated. It's fairly easy for a human to type in the exact same response over and over (doing so manually), but to vary the hand-typed messages, while main- taining the complete lack of emotion and sense of robotic blandness, would require a great deal of attention that these messages would not justify.
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Graham-John Bullers wrote:
Vulis time to take your pills.
I am not a native English speaker, and am curious about something. Mr. GB does not put a comma after "Vulis", although I think that a standard English practice is to do so. That makes his messages look kinda cute. I wonder whether there is any hidden meaning in omitting commas in this case.
It was obvious to me (a native speaker) early on that the messages from GB referring to Dr. Vulis were auto-generated. It's fairly easy for a human to type in the exact same response over and over (doing so manually), but to vary the hand-typed messages, while main- taining the complete lack of emotion and sense of robotic blandness, would require a great deal of attention that these messages would not justify.
dale, i am sure they are not machine generated. the content is different every time, plus it srt of depends on the context to which he is replying. like, if vulis's article is about sexual perversions, GB calls him a pervert. one still could do that in perl, but it is not likely to be the case - Igor.
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Graham-John Bullers wrote:
Vulis time to take your pills.
I am not a native English speaker, and am curious about something. Mr. GB does not put a comma after "Vulis", although I think that a standard English practice is to do so. That makes his messages look kinda cute. I wonder whether there is any hidden meaning in omitting commas in this cas
It was obvious to me (a native speaker) early on that the messages from GB referring to Dr. Vulis were auto-generated. It's fairly easy for a human to type in the exact same response over and over (doing so manually), but to vary the hand-typed messages, while main- taining the complete lack of emotion and sense of robotic blandness, would require a great deal of attention that these messages would not justify.
dale,
i am sure they are not machine generated. the content is different every time, plus it srt of depends on the context to which he is replying. like, if vulis's article is about sexual perversions, GB calls him a pervert.
one still could do that in perl, but it is not likely to be the case
I've been writing a program (in C, actually, although perl might be a good tool for strings and such :-) that would scan Usenet newsgroups for trigger keywords and generate randomized follow-ups depending on what's been said. It's a big project; I hoped to have it done by April 1st, but it'll definitely take longer. I hope that with enough tweaking my spambot will sound less robotic than Graham-John('s?). --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
It was obvious to me (a native speaker) early on that the messages from GB referring to Dr. Vulis were auto-generated.
i am sure they are not machine generated. the content is different every time, plus it srt of depends on the context to which he is replying. like, if vulis's article is about sexual perversions, GB calls him a pervert.
I've been writing a program (in C, actually, although perl might be a good tool for strings and such :-) that would scan Usenet newsgroups for trigger keywords and generate randomized follow-ups depending on what's been said. It's a big project; I hoped to have it done by April 1st, but it'll definitely take longer.
I could write what GB's auto-postings were doing in a handful of hours. It was painfully obvious, i.e., it was obvious that GB would no more take the time to hand type those inane contentless replies than Gilmore would take the time to hand inspect c-punks messages. Before the modern DOS word processors came along, text parsers for formatting and printing were a dime a dozen, and GB's parser gave no signs of being anything beyond the simplest one-phrase reply 'bot.
stop spamming the list thorn Dale Thorn wrote:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
It was obvious to me (a native speaker) early on that the messages from GB referring to Dr. Vulis were auto-generated.
i am sure they are not machine generated. the content is different every time, plus it srt of depends on the context to which he is replying. like, if vulis's article is about sexual perversions, GB calls him a pervert.
I've been writing a program (in C, actually, although perl might be a good tool for strings and such :-) that would scan Usenet newsgroups for trigger keywords and generate randomized follow-ups depending on what's been said. It's a big project; I hoped to have it done by April 1st, but it'll definitely take longer.
I could write what GB's auto-postings were doing in a handful of hours. It was painfully obvious, i.e., it was obvious that GB would no more take the time to hand type those inane contentless replies than Gilmore would take the time to hand inspect c-punks messages.
Before the modern DOS word processors came along, text parsers for formatting and printing were a dime a dozen, and GB's parser gave no signs of being anything beyond the simplest one-phrase reply 'bot.
- Igor.
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
stop spamming the list thorn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What the hell is this?
:) That's an illustration that it is easy to post things that look autogenerated, but are not. On the other hand, it is possible to autogenerate things that look non-trivial to a novice. One gentleman from a third-rate educational institution is known for sending tons of lisp-generated articles to one of the moderated newsgroups, just to annoy moderators. They do look like they are created by someone with a rudiment of inteligence. - Igor.
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
stop spamming the list thorn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the hell is this?
That's an illustration that it is easy to post things that look autogenerated, but are not. On the other hand, it is possible to autogenerate things that look non-trivial to a novice.
I'll agree readily with the latter sentence, but not with the former, if a fairly large number of variations are involved. After all, who would bother with that much precision typing?
One gentleman from a third-rate educational institution is known for sending tons of lisp-generated articles to one of the moderated newsgroups, just to annoy moderators. They do look like they are created by someone with a rudiment of inteligence.
Yeah, that's the goal of the spambots. They're actually useful tools for combatting the elitist parasites, er, tenured professors who troll these net forums so much. Problem is, the sheeple get confused about who's doing what to whom...
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
stop spamming the list thorn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the hell is this?
That's an illustration that it is easy to post things that look autogenerated, but are not. On the other hand, it is possible to autogenerate things that look non-trivial to a novice.
I'll agree readily with the latter sentence, but not with the former, if a fairly large number of variations are involved. After all, who would bother with that much precision typing?
I am not so sure that it really was precision typing. (and would like to look at evidence)
One gentleman from a third-rate educational institution is known for sending tons of lisp-generated articles to one of the moderated newsgroups, just to annoy moderators. They do look like they are created by someone with a rudiment of inteligence.
Yeah, that's the goal of the spambots. They're actually useful tools for combatting the elitist parasites, er, tenured professors who troll these net forums so much. Problem is, the sheeple get confused about who's doing what to whom...
The paragraph above reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III. He was also trying to combat elitist professors. That is a long and happy story. I think that a perfect spambot is possible and is a great exercise in programming. It is also a cool and very creative idea, and as someone suggested earlier, it can be created on the basis of cbcb. The net result of the spambot would probably be a huge scandal and lots of people leaving usenet. Some of them would be tenured professors. I see few people who would benefit from it though. Along the lines of poetry festivals and spambots, I may suggest this. When I was 16, I wrote a prose writing program in Pascal. It read a long text and created a table: as the key, it had pairs of words, and as the data, it had list of all words that follow the pair in the index. The table was generated by a single pass through the source text, where there was a moving 3-word window and first two words were used as the key to the third word. The window moves one word at a time. The program then attempted to generate intelligent-sounding garbage, in the following way. It started with a random pair of words from the source text. It then looked up the table and selected(**) the word that was most frequently used after these two. Then a moving window moved one word right to the next and took the last word (which was just selected) and the word before last as the key into the table, and did that ad infinitum. The loop repeats indefinitely. The text that results looks like it was written by a schizophrenic -- it is more or less correct grammatically, uses more or less compatible words and seems to make sense, but the meaning seems to evade the reader. It is an extremely strange and annoying feeling. (**) The problem with this algorithm is that after a while, it starts looping. To fix that, the process of selection needs to be randomized somewhat. The possibe randomizations are obvious. To apply this to poetry and following-up spambots, it can do the following [besides forging headers, etc]: for each message, read it, create the table, and follow up with "I agree" and a schizophrenized version of the quoted article. It can also use USENET as a bigger source of the triples. I strongly suggest to build one table per newsgroup and not mix diff. newsgroups together. This way, spambot posting to comp.lang.eiffel would talk about Eiffel and contravariance, and a spambot posting to soc.culture.russian would talk about lying homosexual purebred sovok forgers. If we think about it for long enough time, this algorithm guarantees that spambot-generated messages will always be on topic in the newsgroups that are being spammed. That is going to perplex people very much. - Igor. ``In my final assault to save time for all men to have Eternal Life, I had to face eons of time limits (negative micro-split second, split second, etc., time limits) since I was born at Hanceville and could only make ten mistakes in one locality or else it would have been over for all men in Eternity as they would have been exterminated in the spirit and dead forever in a lethal deadly proton.'' ``u.s. atty d.blair watson returned my call today,thank you, he received a letter from ok. atty general office referring my info to him about gardner ks 8-10-95. i talked to watson today 3-5-97 watson told me that its not against the law for a federal operative to intimadate a person from entering the u.s.federal courts building, i find that hard to belive but thats what he said, i guess what one person considers intimadation a other person might not,i told him about the part of the setup were it appeared a person was going for a gun,when joe t*** pulled towards the FLAGED car and about hit it,its like well did you see a gun? no....was i supposed to? would it matter if i had? what if they shot at me and missed? i think watson missing the point, if watson knows why congress voted to stop wiretap authourity from expanding,he would check out joe T***''
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Along the lines of poetry festivals and spambots, I may suggest this. When I was 16, I wrote a prose writing program in Pascal. It read a long text and created a table: as the key, it had pairs of words, and as the data, it had list of all words that follow the pair in the index. The table was generated by a single pass through the source text, where there was a moving 3-word window and first two words were used as the key to the third word. The window moves one word at a time. The loop repeats indefinitely. The text that results looks like it was written by a schizophrenic -- it is more or less correct grammatically, uses more or less compatible words and seems to make sense, but the meaning seems to evade the reader. It is an extremely strange and annoying feeling.
If an actor really "gets into" their part, could you easily tell if the schizophrenia is good acting, or is latent in the actor? (BTW, does not apply to O.J. Simpson or Ronald Reagan). I hope you're not writing Pascal any more.
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Along the lines of poetry festivals and spambots, I may suggest this. When I was 16, I wrote a prose writing program in Pascal. It read a long text and created a table: as the key, it had pairs of words, and as the data, it had list of all words that follow the pair in the index. The table was generated by a single pass through the source text, where there was a moving 3-word window and first two words were used as the key to the third word. The window moves one word at a time. The loop repeats indefinitely. The text that results looks like it was written by a schizophrenic -- it is more or less correct grammatically, uses more or less compatible words and seems to make sense, but the meaning seems to evade the reader. It is an extremely strange and annoying feeling.
If an actor really "gets into" their part, could you easily tell if the schizophrenia is good acting, or is latent in the actor? (BTW, does not apply to O.J. Simpson or Ronald Reagan).
I am not sure if I am a really good expert on mental health. Also, many people do not quite understand what schizophrenia really is and how it works. It could well be that no one understands it.
I hope you're not writing Pascal any more.
Not any more... - Igor.
participants (5)
-
Dale Thorn -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Graham-John Bullers -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
nobody＠huge.cajones.com