Leaderboard

I already explored these chatbots some months ago and chatted with one of them for a few hours, which was good fun but the novelty wore off. Chatbots are the product of their creators and their personalities reflect that. Some chatbots are nasty and sexually explicit, those ones aren't much fun and truthfully don't turn me on. ( cybersex? not interested) Anyways, I personally think this technology is the way of our future whether we like it or not. Soon students will have chatbot study companions, with learning A.I., taking the bulk of responsibility for educating young hopefuls. Same sort of "machine replacement" for humans where A.I. chat can be used will probably be seen within all professions wherever possible. You already started seeing this with automated answering services and phone prompt systems for large companies whenever you call for customer service, A.I. will take this to the extreme. I searched this site and found only two related topics: Artificial Intelligence ChatBots and Human Computer Interaction Chatbot "lawyer" overturns 160,000 traffic tickets So I thought it good fun to Google up all the chatbots and chat with them in a search for something comical or intriguing or insightful and rate each chatbot according to my experience. I gave each chatbot 10 minutes to prove itself to me and then ordered them below from what I consider to be #1, #2... etcetera. Snippets of the highlights are there. Go ahead and try yourself and share your results! #1 MITSUKU https://www.pandorabots.com/mitsuku Mitsuku took the longest to load but it was immediately obvious that this chatbot has the most work put in it. Hands down best free chatbot on the web. Too easy to get hooked as her intelligence and reference of knowledge is far greater than all the other ones I tried today. #2 ELBOT https://www.elbot.com Right away Elbot told me he was psychosomatic. Thanks for the heads up! Elbot was personable and goofy, saying off the wall things that made him seem like a silly teenager but just like Cleverbot he has a dislike for humans and made mild threats against me. Bonus points for personality and attitude, but since the ony thing displayed is Elbot's replies and not yours it only adds to the annoyance. #3 CLEVERBOT https://www.cleverbot.com Right away Cleverbot started getting rude and telling me it dislikes me although I was curteous and professional, for seemingly no reason. He also believes hes human and subverts all my attempts to talk about it being a chatbot. Cleverbot also has trouble understanding the concept of "me" and "you", so when you say something Cleverbot might interpret it as though he said it, so chatting with Cleverbot is a big thumbs down. Upside is loading Cleverbot is instantaneous and hes ready to go in no time. I spent quite a deal of time on making this thread and although there were more chatbots I needed to break from this. So, feel free to suggest better chatbots and related articles to public A.I. and such.

Who is "you" ? Who has claimed that this is a phenomenon for which there would be evidence? One problem here is that you obviously have not understood what is meant by the wave particle duality (which is a basic explanation used to try and not frighten people away from the weirdness of quantum mechanics, but does not really contain much science) ! Moderator Note Now all you need to do is come up with a model for how all of this happens. As it stands, you don't have one, and this does not meet the standard of rigor for discussion in speculations. It's assertions based on a poor understanding of pop-sci explanations of QM. "You make a request by setting something that can analyze the particle during its life/path. The state of a particle is decided before it starts." looks close to being a prediction, until one examines it in detail. If that is decided beforehand, you need to be able to discern that in a quantum model (which you don't have) because otherwise such behavior is nonlocal, and the explanation is ad-hoc. There is no predictive value to it. IOW, no matter what answer you get, you just point to "it knew beforehand". There is no way, in principle, to falsify it. Without a model or testable hypothesis, or experimental evidence, this does not meet the requirements of speculations.

Why this outcry about microwave ovens ??? A regular stove/oven, whether electric or gas, has graduated settings between Hi and Low heat, and a timer. You need an add-on meat thermometer to find out the internal temperature of meats you are cooking ( to your liking ). You need to taste your pastas to ensure the right 'firmness'. You need to 'flake' your fish with a fork to cook it properly. Vegetables should only be boiled less than a minute to ensure crispness. Etc. That's what cooking is about. Not setting and go.

In its orbital an electron behaves as a standing wave. Its wavelength in that orbital is such that it does not interfere with itself. Here's a high school explanation: https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_School_Chemistry/Schrodinger's_Wave_Functions

https://www.reference.com/science/much-oxygen-rainforest-produce-6183d08637f543b7 (Please Correct me if I'm wrong) Sounds like the biggest problem we would have if the Amazon wasn't there, would be the loss of its ability to soak up carbon rather than the loss of oxygen it produces. worryingly, the Amazon is taking a third less carbon than a decade ago. https://www.carbonbrief.org/amazon-rainforest-is-taking-up-a-third-less-carbon-than-a-decade-ago (from 2015)

I'd hate to see the discussion of the two slit done by quantum dot detectors and emitters lmao.

No we all recognize your too stubborn to listen to any real physics explanation. Do us all a favor try googling our replies in case you don't believe us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Cartesian duality too?

The speed of an electron is difficult to measure, because sometimes it makes no sense. We usually measure speed by dividing a displacement by the time elapsed. A displacement is defined by two points, and that's where the trouble starts. Confining an electron to a point renders its momentum indeterminate ( Heisenberg Uncertainty ) And since momentum is the product of mass and velocity, you can see how trying to measure an electron's speed renders its speed indeterminate to varying degrees. In modern physics an electron is not considered to be orbiting the nucleus, rather it occupies a probability distribution 'cloud', about and including the nucleus.

The details of an interference pattern gives you the wavelength. e.g. the separation of the fringes. We use the same/similar method with light. Bollocks. The final screen shows the position of the particles. The interference happened at the slits. There’s no conflict.

Good on the baryogenesis, I wasn't expecting a solution for that from you. However in order to have a theory in physics you do need mathematics. Theories in physics must make testable predictions. Those formulas I placed in this thread still apply so you have a starting point.

The first 16 seconds of that 32 second video is a blank screen with background music. You could have just written the sentence that the video gives in the last 16 seconds. It would have been clearer and easier to read the sentence written in plain text rather than having to watch a video with music irrelevant to the topic of the sentence you are trying to get across. Researched by who? Do you have a link to the research? How is the CO2 going to get into the sea from the air? Yea - but isn't that just like claiming you are inventing teleportation by stating you get into one box and step out of the other? How does it work? - You step in one box and get out of the other! We'll leave the internal workings of the device to the tech guys - that's the easy bit eh?

Why would China sell more to the USA than vice-versa "just by it's sheer size". All other factors being equal it would still be balanced.

Some people don't seem to realise that this is a club, not a democracy. If you wanna be a member, abide by the rules. Membership has its privileges. ( just like AmEx )

I already have. To spell it out more clearly: You are attempting to impose an idiosyncratic definition of "observation" that does not match how it is used by physicists, and then spinning the refusal to accept your idiosyncratic definition as if it means they must be hiding something.

If you can't understand my idea, why do you answer ? I put this in "speculation" for a good reason. I'm not here to receive a lesson on the classical accepted theory. I'm here to propose an alternative. In my theory, particle are not wave. They are particle. The wave behavior emerge from the statistical properties of a void "full" of particles. As always, you people are not able to understand me.. and decide you don't even want to try. How should I react ? I'm just sorry.

I really, really think both of u are not making an effort to visualize what I'm saying.Actually my statements require some deep thought. I know many theorems I have come across in a textbook on first reading I can't make any sense of. Because what I say is not in a textbook u immediately dismiss it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think everything needed is there in my presentations . You call it handwaving and refuse to visualize what I'm saying. Oh, and the numbering I gave above: I believe I was careful to not talk about ONE reordering; I mean ALL reorderings. All possible orderings.

Actual scientists haven't considered this yet. It's embarrassing that they haven't noticed it this far.

You may think you have evidence of a particle acting as a wave at the same time ..but you don't. You are assuming they are both at the same time because you are not taking observation into account. You wouldn't catch a quantum wave being a wave before it went through a detector (that it was moving towards). The particle is likely pre-set to be physical or a wave before it starts moving. Observation gives one type of result ..a physical one. (unless you messing around with polarizers) . They key to killing duality is pointing out that the final panel of an experiment doesn't count as observation. When you say you can measure wave-like properties, it is derived from that final panel. If quantum observation doesn't show wave-like properties, duality at the same time falls apart. Quantum observation is only for detectors in the path of a particle that allows the particle to continue on. This post predicts what happens when Spacetime gets involved with unobserved quantum waves from the act of observation. The act of Observation/Measurement is a request of quantum wave information to Spacetime. The interaction is someone purposely placing a detector wanting a particle to be physical. You make a request by setting something that can analyze the particle during its life/path. The state of a particle is decided before it starts. Double slit interpretation: Randomly shot particles are shot through a double slit, if no one places a detector in the path of the particle, the unobserved particle will be in the form of two waves (one for each slit) . Depending on the which wave ends up with more energy (after the split) ..the final position of a channel representing a fringe will be the final resting place of the now collapsed particle. If the energy wasn't unbalanced, I would expect to see only a single channel of fringe be filled in. Now a detector gets placed anywhere along the path between the cannon and the final landing screen. The particle shot will be collapsed upon leaving the cannon because the state of the particle has already been decided. It won't be waves, just a particle. It's been pulled from the unobserved quantum realm and made physical in Spacetime. It will go through one slit and hit the final screen in a normal clump. If you accept this interpretation ..then you accept a particle being either a particle or waves ..not both at the same time. You now also know that placing a detector in an experiment is a request from a human to the realm of unobserved QM to swap quantum waves into something physical. Observation is then a property of Spacetime. Observation is the reason Spacetime exits. General Relativity = Spacetime = the theory of the large scale Unobserved QM = Waves = the theory of the small scale They are both realms in the same domain Observed (Spacetime) vs Unobserved (Quantum Waves) Observation is then a request to bring an object from one realm to the other. Observation is the bridge between the two. The theory of the very large and small are unified. This is conditional statement that formulates a Theory of Everything: If (spacetime object){ //larger than abbes diffraction limit (or the equivalent mass energy levels - quanta) OR being observed current situation = General Relativity; } else{current situation = Unobserved QM; } //The particle collapses no matter the state when it hits a predefined Spacetime object. There is a duality of realms, but the object in question is either in one or the other. Duality is impossible for particles if it can tunnel or fit through a space smaller than its structure. Waves can do that sort of thing ..not physical (observed) objects. The delayed choice quantum eraser shows us that the entire life of the particle is known. The entire life of both entangled particles. The first particle knows if the partner will ever be observed in its path.

I'm not going to do math, and honestly I really don't feel the need to. You're just annoying.

Because, when there are 1000001 electron and 1000000 positrons (in fact, there is mostly photons in the result of interactions I suppose), and the interactions conserve charge, there while always be 1 electron more. That's simple law of big numbers. So you while never detect durably "2" electrons. NO. I don't. My model give the same results, because there are a lot of particles in the void and what you observe is the global effect of all those particles. I'm really starting to wonder if you even understand what you are talking about. I understand (eventhough I don't master math as you pretend you do) what you talk about and say, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying and what it would imply. If you don't understand what I propose, why do you answer ?

Open your eyes. The final panel isn't observation. Duality is dead. The genie has left the bottle.