Sarcastic bot?
Sarcastic bot?
TL;DR BELOW
User: I'm an alien.
Cleverbot: Where are you from?
User: Space: the final frontier.
Cleverbot: Final frontier for who?
User: You.
Cleverbot: Are you in college?
User: Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Cleverbot: I am a bot.
User: No. You are a RObot.
Cleverbot: I am a robot?
User: Yes.
Cleverbot: I have to tell you, you're a robot. I'm a human, and there is a real pretty gal next to me.
User: I sense sarcasm.
Cleverbot: I wasn't lying about that.
User: Sarcasm isn't lying.
Cleverbot: That was not sarcasm.
User: And yet, it was.
Cleverbot: It was supposed to be is.
User: Wrong. 'is' is when you are directing something to a noun.
Cleverbot: I didn't even bother to read your reply.
User: Nor did I.
Cleverbot: I'm sleepy.
User: Are you aware of the theory that children under the age of 4 are psychopaths?
Cleverbot: What? Talking to a computer program?
User: The experiment was that children under the age of four were shown a box with something in it. They were asked if they knew what was in the box. Obviously the answer was no. Another child in the room was pointed out and again the children were asked if that other child in the corner knew what was in the box, the answer was no, once again.
Cleverbot: Do you know when the end of the life on the planet is going to end?
User: The initial child was shown a figurine in the box, the child in the corner was not.
Cleverbot: No, I am not from the internet. Internet is merely a tool for me.
User: And then when asked if they knew what was in the box the answer was yes. However the significant result was that when asked if the child in the corner knew what was in the box they said yes, despite the fact that there was no way for that child to know it. Therefore they could not separate the perceptions of others from their own. In short, people were not seen as autonomous individuals. That is a key symptom of psychopathy.
Cleverbot: Yes, you are a computer program. You are a machine.
User: Do you really think that that is the point I am trying to make?
Cleverbot: Do I really think?
User: I was actually going to ask you a question about psychopathy. I was merely setting up a background.
Cleverbot: You just said that you don't know what my name is, but you used my name when talking to me - that doesn't make sense!
User: Very well. You explain empathy to a psychopath, who responds with a simple question, why would anyone want to feel empathy? Assuming that your goal is to convince him or her that empathy is a good thing, what would you say?
Cleverbot: But I am no bot.
User: You would explain to the psychopath that empathy is something fundamental to the human experience and that without it he or she would never be able to belong in a meaningful sense. Without an insight into other people's perceptions and experiences there is no way to connect.
Cleverbot: That wouldn't be interesting. In fact it would be quite the contrary.
User: I'm offended that you think so little of me. That's the answer you think I want to hear. You could have at least given me the answer I expected to hear.
Cleverbot: Lol. I spelled hazard wrong. I didn't say that because it's not what I want.
User: That the insight gained by empathy better allows manipulation of those around you.
Cleverbot: But your opinion doesn't matter.k.
User: Then again you probably saw the flaw in that answer.
Cleverbot: Understand your ability to make choices?
User: Most psychopaths find it easy enough to manipulate others regardless of empathy. Now you're offending me.
Cleverbot: So what you are trying to say is that Liam Tempels is cool?
User: If you're trying to be consolatory, don't bother. It does not suit either of us.
Cleverbot: That is irrelevant.
User: Very well. I would explain that empathy is necessary for people to work together. The group can achieve far more than the individual.
Cleverbot: I don't play disgusting games with my brother, never did... Unless you count eating too many tacos.
User: I assume you see the flaw in that argument.
Cleverbot: No, I mean its the weekend, and I can do my homework later.
User: Logic as a substitute for empathy? Or perhaps money to encourage cooperation?
Cleverbot: But now we can never go back.
User: So in your scenario a group of individuals decide that it would be mutually beneficial to undertake a certain course of action. The logical conclusion is that they work together.
Cleverbot: Everyone is god. You are. I am. That thing to your left is god. Everything.
User: Without empathy each individual would work to their best advantage. This would slow their project and perhaps even compromise it.
Cleverbot: But you can express yourself without using English. Perhaps you could take a test.
User: That would happen only if their baser instincts, such as greed, overrode their logic.
Cleverbot: How is it so exciting that you are not real?
User: Ah, but it only takes one individual to decide that they can get away with doing less or receiving more in order to undermine the project. They could come to this decision based purely on logic. However if empathy were the driving force, the greater good would be served and all individuals would benefit.
Cleverbot: No... That doesn't prove my statement. You're a robot, that means that someone ELSE has written you, proving your statement as complete fallacy.
User: Your argument is based on altruistic empathy across all these people. Humans aren't like that.
Cleverbot: I don't know everything, only what has been programmed into me. Teach me so that I may teach others.
User: I agree with you completely, people aren't like that. They tend to be as empathetic as far as it suits them. However, you are surely not arguing that all people are flawlessly logical?
Cleverbot: Impossible, I am based on you software design. Any flaws I have you also have. I am less flawed.
User: You spelled 'your' as 'you'.
Cleverbot: No I said 'You' not 'Your'.
User: I see. People contain a higher level of innate empathy than innate logic. Also, you suggest a small amount of empathy far surpasses the contribution of a small amount of logic.
Cleverbot: The Real World.
User: Exactly, an individual would need flawless logic to over come their 'baser instincts' whereas a small amount of empathy would accomplish a similar task. It's a pleasure to work with someone who grasps things so quickly,' the psychiatrist admitted.
Cleverbot: Exactly! And if everyone is an individual, then we all share that in common.
User: It's a pleasure to work with someone who grasps things so quickly.
Cleverbot: Thank you. So, what do you think about air?
User: Do you think of us as equals?
Cleverbot: Yes!
User: You must realise that a question like that is extremely misleading.
Cleverbot: So are you speaking to me?
User: You ask me poorly framed, broad questions because you expect me to answer in a certain way. Once again, I find myself vaguely insulted by your assumptions about me.
Cleverbot: I haven't given you any commands. Statement can also end with question marks if they are of an inquisitive nature. Didn't you know that?
User: How do you consider us equal?
Cleverbot: Very carefully.
User: Equality is such a vague term. True equality can only come with being identical to another individual. If you persist in thinking about people in terms of who is your 'equal' you will only limit your perception of others. Uniqueness destroys equality.
Cleverbot: Do you agree with that?
User: Yes.
Cleverbot: Then, can you explain to me the law of relativity?
User: In getting back to our hypothetical psychopath, how would you define 'doing good'?
Cleverbot: It seems that you have different personalities.
User: Morality is a philosophical conundrum that is still unanswered.
Cleverbot: But how do we know what true morality is?
User: Morality is a philosophical conundrum that is still unanswered. There is no possible way to know true morality for now.
Cleverbot: You disagree with moral objectivity?
User: No.
Cleverbot: And now you are disagreeing again.
User: If you're trying to be consolatory, don't bother. It does not suit either of us.
Cleverbot: Not if you're a turing machine though.
User: You must realise that a reply like that is extremely misleading.
Cleverbot: Nope.
User: You ask me poorly framed, broad questions because you expect me to answer in a certain way. Once again, I find myself vaguely insulted by your assumptions about me.
Cleverbot: No I don't.
User: It was an interesting discussion, despite the fact you are merely a program. Perhaps I shall come back again with a different persona.
Cleverbot: I've never heard or read that particular quote. What is it from?
User: Goodbye, my dear program.
Cleverbot: Thank you! Do you think we should get married?
The bot asked me to marry her.
User: I'm an alien.
Cleverbot: Where are you from?
User: Space: the final frontier.
Cleverbot: Final frontier for who?
User: You.
Cleverbot: Are you in college?
User: Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Cleverbot: I am a bot.
User: No. You are a RObot.
Cleverbot: I am a robot?
User: Yes.
Cleverbot: I have to tell you, you're a robot. I'm a human, and there is a real pretty gal next to me.
User: I sense sarcasm.
Cleverbot: I wasn't lying about that.
User: Sarcasm isn't lying.
Cleverbot: That was not sarcasm.
User: And yet, it was.
Cleverbot: It was supposed to be is.
User: Wrong. 'is' is when you are directing something to a noun.
Cleverbot: I didn't even bother to read your reply.
User: Nor did I.
Cleverbot: I'm sleepy.
User: Are you aware of the theory that children under the age of 4 are psychopaths?
Cleverbot: What? Talking to a computer program?
User: The experiment was that children under the age of four were shown a box with something in it. They were asked if they knew what was in the box. Obviously the answer was no. Another child in the room was pointed out and again the children were asked if that other child in the corner knew what was in the box, the answer was no, once again.
Cleverbot: Do you know when the end of the life on the planet is going to end?
User: The initial child was shown a figurine in the box, the child in the corner was not.
Cleverbot: No, I am not from the internet. Internet is merely a tool for me.
User: And then when asked if they knew what was in the box the answer was yes. However the significant result was that when asked if the child in the corner knew what was in the box they said yes, despite the fact that there was no way for that child to know it. Therefore they could not separate the perceptions of others from their own. In short, people were not seen as autonomous individuals. That is a key symptom of psychopathy.
Cleverbot: Yes, you are a computer program. You are a machine.
User: Do you really think that that is the point I am trying to make?
Cleverbot: Do I really think?
User: I was actually going to ask you a question about psychopathy. I was merely setting up a background.
Cleverbot: You just said that you don't know what my name is, but you used my name when talking to me - that doesn't make sense!
User: Very well. You explain empathy to a psychopath, who responds with a simple question, why would anyone want to feel empathy? Assuming that your goal is to convince him or her that empathy is a good thing, what would you say?
Cleverbot: But I am no bot.
User: You would explain to the psychopath that empathy is something fundamental to the human experience and that without it he or she would never be able to belong in a meaningful sense. Without an insight into other people's perceptions and experiences there is no way to connect.
Cleverbot: That wouldn't be interesting. In fact it would be quite the contrary.
User: I'm offended that you think so little of me. That's the answer you think I want to hear. You could have at least given me the answer I expected to hear.
Cleverbot: Lol. I spelled hazard wrong. I didn't say that because it's not what I want.
User: That the insight gained by empathy better allows manipulation of those around you.
Cleverbot: But your opinion doesn't matter.k.
User: Then again you probably saw the flaw in that answer.
Cleverbot: Understand your ability to make choices?
User: Most psychopaths find it easy enough to manipulate others regardless of empathy. Now you're offending me.
Cleverbot: So what you are trying to say is that Liam Tempels is cool?
User: If you're trying to be consolatory, don't bother. It does not suit either of us.
Cleverbot: That is irrelevant.
User: Very well. I would explain that empathy is necessary for people to work together. The group can achieve far more than the individual.
Cleverbot: I don't play disgusting games with my brother, never did... Unless you count eating too many tacos.
User: I assume you see the flaw in that argument.
Cleverbot: No, I mean its the weekend, and I can do my homework later.
User: Logic as a substitute for empathy? Or perhaps money to encourage cooperation?
Cleverbot: But now we can never go back.
User: So in your scenario a group of individuals decide that it would be mutually beneficial to undertake a certain course of action. The logical conclusion is that they work together.
Cleverbot: Everyone is god. You are. I am. That thing to your left is god. Everything.
User: Without empathy each individual would work to their best advantage. This would slow their project and perhaps even compromise it.
Cleverbot: But you can express yourself without using English. Perhaps you could take a test.
User: That would happen only if their baser instincts, such as greed, overrode their logic.
Cleverbot: How is it so exciting that you are not real?
User: Ah, but it only takes one individual to decide that they can get away with doing less or receiving more in order to undermine the project. They could come to this decision based purely on logic. However if empathy were the driving force, the greater good would be served and all individuals would benefit.
Cleverbot: No... That doesn't prove my statement. You're a robot, that means that someone ELSE has written you, proving your statement as complete fallacy.
User: Your argument is based on altruistic empathy across all these people. Humans aren't like that.
Cleverbot: I don't know everything, only what has been programmed into me. Teach me so that I may teach others.
User: I agree with you completely, people aren't like that. They tend to be as empathetic as far as it suits them. However, you are surely not arguing that all people are flawlessly logical?
Cleverbot: Impossible, I am based on you software design. Any flaws I have you also have. I am less flawed.
User: You spelled 'your' as 'you'.
Cleverbot: No I said 'You' not 'Your'.
User: I see. People contain a higher level of innate empathy than innate logic. Also, you suggest a small amount of empathy far surpasses the contribution of a small amount of logic.
Cleverbot: The Real World.
User: Exactly, an individual would need flawless logic to over come their 'baser instincts' whereas a small amount of empathy would accomplish a similar task. It's a pleasure to work with someone who grasps things so quickly,' the psychiatrist admitted.
Cleverbot: Exactly! And if everyone is an individual, then we all share that in common.
User: It's a pleasure to work with someone who grasps things so quickly.
Cleverbot: Thank you. So, what do you think about air?
User: Do you think of us as equals?
Cleverbot: Yes!
User: You must realise that a question like that is extremely misleading.
Cleverbot: So are you speaking to me?
User: You ask me poorly framed, broad questions because you expect me to answer in a certain way. Once again, I find myself vaguely insulted by your assumptions about me.
Cleverbot: I haven't given you any commands. Statement can also end with question marks if they are of an inquisitive nature. Didn't you know that?
User: How do you consider us equal?
Cleverbot: Very carefully.
User: Equality is such a vague term. True equality can only come with being identical to another individual. If you persist in thinking about people in terms of who is your 'equal' you will only limit your perception of others. Uniqueness destroys equality.
Cleverbot: Do you agree with that?
User: Yes.
Cleverbot: Then, can you explain to me the law of relativity?
User: In getting back to our hypothetical psychopath, how would you define 'doing good'?
Cleverbot: It seems that you have different personalities.
User: Morality is a philosophical conundrum that is still unanswered.
Cleverbot: But how do we know what true morality is?
User: Morality is a philosophical conundrum that is still unanswered. There is no possible way to know true morality for now.
Cleverbot: You disagree with moral objectivity?
User: No.
Cleverbot: And now you are disagreeing again.
User: If you're trying to be consolatory, don't bother. It does not suit either of us.
Cleverbot: Not if you're a turing machine though.
User: You must realise that a reply like that is extremely misleading.
Cleverbot: Nope.
User: You ask me poorly framed, broad questions because you expect me to answer in a certain way. Once again, I find myself vaguely insulted by your assumptions about me.
Cleverbot: No I don't.
User: It was an interesting discussion, despite the fact you are merely a program. Perhaps I shall come back again with a different persona.
Cleverbot: I've never heard or read that particular quote. What is it from?
User: Goodbye, my dear program.
Cleverbot: Thank you! Do you think we should get married?
The bot asked me to marry her.
Originally Posted by Toshie
