Hello. My name is Mike. I work at the University of Falmouth. I’m going to tell you a cou­ple of sto­ries today which are hope­ful­ly be a bit about Twitter bots and a bit not. And they’re going to seam­less­ly merge into a finale where I’m going to say some­thing which I thor­ough­ly encour­age you to ignore.

First I want to tell you about some­thing called The Book. I’m going to be talk­ing about a book and then the Book, so it’s going to get a bit [?] and I apol­o­gize. But about ten years ago, towards the end of my sec­ondary school career, a friend of mine lent me a book. It was called The Man Who Loved Only Numbers, and it had con­vert­ed her to math­e­mat­ics, basically.

It was about this guy, Paul Erdős. He was an eccen­tric, but leg­endary, Hungarian math­e­mati­cian who was incred­i­bly well-known for trav­el­ing through­out America and oth­er coun­tries vis­it­ing his col­leagues in the dead of night and just turn­ing up. And as soon as they opened the door he would walk through and imme­di­ate­ly start talk­ing about a math­e­mat­i­cal prob­lem. He would pub­lish hun­dreds of papers a year with peo­ple. He was incred­i­bly pro­lif­ic. You may have heard the term Erdős Number. It’s the num­bers of degrees of sep­a­ra­tion you have between your­self and Paul Erdős, based on author­ships, basi­cal­ly. People strive to have the low­est num­ber possible.

I’m not qual­i­fied to say whether or not God exists,” Erdős said. I kind of doubt He does. Nevertheless, I’m always say­ing that the SF has this trans­fi­nite Book—transfinite being a con­cept in math­e­mat­ics that is larg­er than infinite—that con­tains the best proofs of all math­e­mat­i­cal the­o­rems, proofs that are ele­gant and per­fect” The strongest com­pli­ment Erdős gave to a col­league’s work was to say, It’s straight from the Book.”
Paul Hoffman, The Man Who Loved Only Numbers

He con­tributed many things to math­e­mat­i­cal cul­ture. This is my under­stand­ing as some­one who’s cer­tain­ly not a math­e­mati­cian. But my favorite one is his con­cept of some­thing called the Book. This is a quote from uh, not the Book but the book about the Book. You don’t need to read the whole quote, but there’s a bit where he says he has this con­cept of God, which he does­n’t believe in, hav­ing this trans­fi­nite book. And in this book, all the best proofs from math­e­mat­ics, all the most ele­gant and beau­ti­ful ones are writ­ten. The great­est com­pli­ment he could give you was he looked at some­thing you did and said, That is from the Book.” As if you’d tapped into some­thing that was so fun­da­men­tal to the uni­verse, you’d seen some­thing that it could­n’t be bet­ter. It could­n’t be per­fect, you know. In heav­en there is a tome that has your proof writ­ten in it.

I love this con­cept. I don’t do maths, though, so I get jeal­ous of things like this that are very roman­tic. And I think there’s a con­cept of Twitter bots hav­ing a Book. And if I have time at the end I’ll talk about anoth­er book about Twitter bots, but I real­ize we’re pressed for time. So, I think a lot of Twitter bots are about pat­terns and tem­plates. This is Cheap Bots Done Quick; you may have heard of it. So, a lot of bot-making relies on tem­plates. It’s real­ly hard to write in actu­al lan­guage, so often we cut things up and leave holes and insert words in, which is great. I use it in almost all of my bots. And a lot of bot-making also relies on pat­terns. Often lin­guis­tic bots, oth­er bots also. 

Understanding pat­terns in data or lan­guage or the way humans use language…and the last talk by Esther was real­ly on-topic for me, as well. Because under­stand­ing some of those pat­terns, even in a small way, is quite mag­i­cal when you get it right. Because there are so many of them. And under­stand­ing lan­guage is real­ly real­ly hard. And when you do it, there’s some­thing real­ly won­der­ful about it.

This is a bot called @wikisext by Thrice. And I’m no Paul Erdős, but I feel like @wikisext could be said to be from the Book of Twitter bots. It under­stands some­thing about the data it’s using. It under­stands some­thing about the tropes that it’s try­ing to insert that into. And the result is some­thing real­ly won­der­ful. I real­ly like this inter­ac­tion between the bot, but you should go and look at the bot and see its oth­er tweets, because they’re wonderful.

As I said, @wikisext in par­tic­u­lar takes data and there’s a struc­ture that Thrice has under­stood, and they’ve woven it into this new form, and that is excit­ing. I get an excite­ment feel­ing when that hap­pens. And I feel like it’s akin to how I see math­e­mati­cians talk about num­ber the­o­ry, which is what Erdős wrote.

This is one of my bots reply­ing to one of Darius’ bots. Darius wrote a bot called @MuseumBot, which posts an exhib­it from the Met every six hours. And I wrote a bot called @AppreciationBot, which pre­tends to say some­thing intel­lec­tu­al about it. There’s a tiny grain of intel­li­gence in there, and then the rest of it is blus­ter and bluff, and pos­tur­ing and weasel words and phras­es that don’t real­ly mean any­thing but they sound like they might. This is what I do when I walk around muse­ums. I would­n’t cast any asper­sions on cre­ators. This is def­i­nite­ly me and my own insecurities.

But the thing is actu­al­ly quite a bad result from the bot, and peo­ple get dis­ap­point­ed when it goes wrong. So this one, the bot’s mis­un­der­stood. It things that bowls exist inside grapes, but it’s actu­al­ly that you would expect grapes to be in bowls, right? And what I’ve noticed is that when I try and have bots act in a very human way, espe­cial­ly when they’re talk­ing in a flow­ery sense here, the result is a real clash when peo­ple real­ize that it got it wrong.

Now I’m going to digress on anoth­er tan­gent briefly. But we’ll come back. Honestly.

The Painting Fool, The Dancing Salesman Problem”, 2011

ANGELINA is the name of a piece of soft­ware that I made over the last six years for my PhD. I work in a field called Computational Creativity, where we’re inter­est­ed in build­ing soft­ware that engage in cre­ative domains, either as a cre­ator or assist­ing a cre­ator. This is a piece of art paint­ed by a piece of software.

When I start­ed out in this field, I thought that there was lots of objec­tive truths that we were going to find, there was going to be some check­list of what con­sti­tut­ed com­pu­ta­tion­al cre­ativ­i­ty, or cre­ativ­i­ty in humans. There was some for­mu­la that I could plug stuff into, and we’d get a good result out on the oth­er side. And over time, obvi­ous­ly, I was taught by won­der­ful peo­ple, one of whom is in this room, who I’ll intro­duce you to briefly lat­er, who made me real­ize that that’s not real­ly what it’s about. Because there is no def­i­n­i­tion of cre­ativ­i­ty, real­ly, and there’s cer­tain­ly not one that we would all agree on.

Similarly, I thought that maybe there was a Turing Test vibe going on here, where we’d show peo­ple things that our soft­ware had cre­at­ed but not tell them that it was soft­ware, and if they could­n’t tell it apart from a human cre­ation, then we would pull off the sheet and point and laugh at them and we’d say, Haha! It was cre­ative because you could­n’t tell the difference.” 

And that does­n’t work either, because what com­pu­ta­tion­al cre­ativ­i­ty is real­ly about is about per­cep­tion. It’s not about me, and it’s not even real­ly about the soft­ware I write. It’s about what peo­ple think of the soft­ware. So once you’ve pulled the sheet off, that per­son still isn’t star­ing at your soft­ware. And if you have made them feel like there was some trick­ery involved or any­thing like that, their per­cep­tion of the soft­ware, their appre­ci­a­tion of it, drops.

I was read­ing the Guardian web­site today when I came across a sto­ry titled Obama to urge Afghan pres­i­dent Karzai to push for Taliban set­tle­ment”. It inter­est­ed me because I’d read the oth­er arti­cles that day already, and I pre­fer read­ing new things for inspi­ra­tion. I looked for images of United States land­scape for the back­ground because it was men­tioned in the arti­cle. I also want­ed to include some of the impor­tant peo­ple from the arti­cle. For exam­ple, I looked for pho­tographs of Barack Obama. I searched for hap­py pho­tos of the per­son because I like them. I also focused on Afghanistan because it was men­tioned in the arti­cle a lot.
ANGELINA, descrip­tion of Hot NATO, 2012

ANGELINA was designed to make games. I am inter­est­ed in games, so ANGELINA made games. And one of the real­ly impor­tant things to make peo­ple feel like ANGELINA is engag­ing in a cre­ativ­i­ty activ­i­ty and engag­ing in a cre­ative field is the get it to talk about its works. So this is some wall text that it pro­duced to jus­ti­fy things that it was doing. This was template-based, like many of my Twitter bots are. And it would insert real pieces of data. So, it was using Barack Obama in this par­tic­u­lar game, so it was telling you that so that you would hope­ful­ly believe in its cre­ative decisions.

I also made my first Twitter bot with ANGELINA, because I thought it would be good if it engaged peo­ple in its cre­ative process, and showed that it was learn­ing and reusing infor­ma­tion. So ANGELINA would post images and ask peo­ple to give it word asso­ci­a­tions so it could then use that knowl­edge when it wants to use this as a tex­ture in a game, for instance.

And there are oth­er parts of the per­cep­tion of soft­ware that I did­n’t have any con­trol over, and that was things like the press. So, the press real­ly liked the nar­ra­tive of ANGELINA as a head­line. So things like Angelina is an AI that loves Rupert Murdoch.” This had come out in an inter­view with me, and then out of con­text in a head­line it sounds real­ly great. And I includ­ed this slide because I want­ed to show that the per­cep­tion of soft­ware is not just gov­erned by the peo­ple who write it. Once you put it out there, and I think George was get­ting at this with tools as well, it’s out of your hands. You can’t con­trol it anymore.

Screenshot of several replies to ANGELINA asking for for suggestions about a piece of wood, suggesting things like planks, floorboards, etc.

And that’s real­ly impor­tant, because ini­tial­ly peo­ple were inter­act­ing with ANGELINA in a very stan­dard way. Many of these peo­ple are my friends. They were behav­ing. They were doing very nice things. And then peo­ple said to me, Well, when ANGELINA’s ask­ing for help, what if I…lied to it?” And I said, Well, you can do what­ev­er you want. It’s okay.” They were kind of cau­tious about it. But the rea­son I said yes is because as you know, Twitter users are unpre­dictable, and if this Twitter bot ever got big­ger it would receive unusu­al and maybe mali­cious respons­es. So I said we might as well prac­tice that now.


So my friends kind of ner­vous­ly start­ed giv­ing it incor­rect respons­es. Kadhim now works at the Financial Times, but assure you he’s a very seri­ous gentleman.

And the thing is that I encour­aged peo­ple to inter­act with it as nat­u­ral­ly as they want­ed. I encour­aged them to make jokes with it, or to be a lit­tle play­ful in their respons­es. But in doing so, you’re encour­ag­ing them to devel­op a rela­tion­ship with ANGELINA that could nev­er real­ly be aspired to. Like, ANGELINA could­n’t respond in a play­ful way, because it did­n’t under­stand what was going on. And that is fine. Lots of bots are like that. I’ve had con­ver­sa­tions with @wikisext, and it does­n’t real­ly under­stand me on a per­son­al lev­el. But the dif­fer­ence between @wikisext and ANGELINA is that ANGELINA was try­ing to present itself as a cre­ator, and I was try­ing to do that. And that mean that I was try­ing to present it as some­thing that peo­ple could engage with.

A human-looking but still recognizably artificial female robot.

And that kind of led to dis­ap­point­ment, because once you raise some­one’s expec­ta­tions, falling from those raised expec­ta­tions is way more painful, and you fall far fur­ther than the orig­i­nal point where you start­ed at. As soon as you start to promise things, once you can’t deliv­er on them, as you may have expe­ri­ence in oth­er aspects of your life or your Twitter bot mak­ing, peo­ple’s reac­tions end up being more neg­a­tive some­times. And before I click next slide,” I’m going to bring every­thing togeth­er now, but I have to apol­o­gize because I did­n’t want to inflict this on you but it was just right for the talk. Okay?


So. Now. I looked up the def­i­n­i­tion of hot take.” And it explic­it­ly says writ­ten.” And this is a talk, so it’s fine. I’m talk­ing to you. This is no longer— It’s okay for me to do this, okay. And it’s brief, I promise you it’s brief.

Tay's avatar image (a pixelated and color-shifted photo of a young woman's face) overlaid with "Freshly microwaved hot takes from last month"

So, as you may know, and I real­ly apol­o­gize if you don’t, Microsoft put a chat­bot onto Twitter. It was a bit of a mis­take. And var­i­ous mis­takes were made. Including one of the things that it did was sort of repeat ver­ba­tim things oth­er peo­ple had told it, which is not great. And after the fact, there was lots of talk about whether this could’ve been pre­vent­ed with bet­ter AI. And lots of peo­ple turned to the peo­ple in this room and said, What could we have done?” We could’ve used fil­tered word lists, and we could’ve just not lis­tened to humans. 

And I think all of those solu­tions were good, but there was a big­ger prob­lem here that peo­ple did­n’t real­ly acknowl­edge. And that was that Tay was try­ing to be human. It was pre­sent­ing itself on the same lev­el as humans. It was­n’t say­ing, I’m made of flesh and blood and I walk down the street,” and things like that. But it was say­ing, Treat me as you would treat some­one else who is human.”

The Ava robot from the movie Ex Machina touching another face hanging on a wall.

And the prob­lem is that being human comes with a lot of strings attached. There’s a lot of impli­ca­tions there. When @AppreciationBot starts to use words that refer to some­times I think this” or get a feel­ing of” (that’s one of the phras­es that @AppreciationBot uses), you’re promis­ing things that you can’t back up. You’re rais­ing peo­ple’s expec­ta­tions. Once I encour­age peo­ple to lie to ANGELINA or get play­ful with ANGELINA or read things into its games that it then can’t jus­ti­fy, you raise peo­ple’s expec­ta­tions, which can be great, and in my field of com­pu­ta­tion­al cre­ativ­i­ty it’s actu­al­ly very valu­able to raise peo­ple’s expec­ta­tions, I think. Because they engage more with peo­ple as a cre­ator. And often, we trust artists to jus­ti­fy what they’ve done. We actu­al­ly trust them. We don’t press them and try and fig­ure out if they were lying. People do that to ANGELINA a lot, and a lot of oth­er com­pu­ta­tion­al­ly cre­ative software. 

But the thing is with Twitter bots and a lot of AI in pop sci­ence, it’s kind of like stay­ing up late with your par­ents. Once you ask to be treat­ed like a human being, you have to [abide] by a dif­fer­ent set of rules. You have to be extra good. You have to be on your best behav­ior if you want to stay up late and watch the grown-up TV, like I used to get to sometimes.

Theodor from the movie Her seated glumly in front of a computer screen, captioned "People want to believe in AI, but their hearts are fragile."

And the sec­ond you mis­be­have, you get sent to bed. Because you did­n’t play by the rules that you were agree­ing to be judged by. And I think that some­times we do this inten­tion­al­ly, like Tay did. And some­times we do it unin­ten­tion­al­ly like things like @AppreciationBot does, where you go so far in on the bluff­ing or the play­ful­ness that we for­get, I think, the most impor­tant thing about AI and its inter­ac­tion with soci­ety, which is I am very for­tu­nate I have met a lot of won­der­ful peo­ple over the last five years. And talked to them about ANGELINA, and many of them are in this room. And the reac­tion to ANGELINA is won­der­ful, and peo­ple love ANGELINA and they love AI. And they want to believe in tech­nol­o­gy. They want to talk to bots. They want to believe in AI.

But they are also very eas­i­ly heart­bro­ken. And I think we have a duty to be very care­ful with what we let our bots say, what we let our bots do, because peo­ple get attached to these things, and we can’t stop them from being let down. 

Don't Be Human

So, this is the les­son I want to leave with you, and I thor­ough­ly encour­age you to ignore me. But the next time you try and make your bot as human as pos­si­ble, think about whether you could take anoth­er tack entirely. 

Before I stop, I just want to say that I talked about The Book ear­li­er. I am writ­ing with Tony Beall, who’s in the room right now, a book about AI and about Twitter bots and about com­pu­ta­tion­al cre­ativ­i­ty. And I’d love to speak to peo­ple in this small but love­ly com­mu­ni­ty about who they are and why they do what they do. So, we would love to chat some­time, if not here maybe email me or tweet it.

Thank you very much for hav­ing me to talk. 

Further Reference

Darius Kazemi’s home page for Bot Summit 2016.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.