The Pistos Test

[Pistos]

(Reposted from old forums.  Original post dated Dec 14 2004.)

I would like to propose a challenge to chatterbot developers worldwide.

Definition of the Pistos Test:

If a robot converts or aids in the conversion of a human being from one religion, faith or belief system to another, it has passed the Pistos Test.

I've deliberately left it fairly open ended, as my intention is not to be legalistic, but rather to encourage exploration of the idea of combining computers with the realms of evangelization and apologetics.

My initial intention is that the term "robot" encompass all software programs that emulate a conversation partner without real-time human intervention. Familiar examples would be: Alice and derivatives, Eliza and derivatives, Jabberwacky, Jabberwock, Elbot, the various *HALs, and so on. But it doesn't have to be limited to that; any sort of program, computer, or even physical robot that succeeds in achieving the goal of the test would not be considered disqualified.

As to whether a conversion has occurred or not: I suggest using the convert's honest admission as the litmus test. That is, the convert should express that having a conversation (or conversations) with the bot played a significant role in converting him or her.

I don't have any strong intentions at this point of setting up a contest, a la the Loebner Prize or Chatterbox Challenge, but I am very much interested in hearing about anyone's efforts or work with respect to passing the Pistos Test.

Why is it called the Pistos Test? Not just because that's my nickname!  Pistos is Greek for "faith" or "faithful [person]", or "believer".

----
Pistos, author of the chatterbot Mathetes

[Pistos]

Pistos, I've written a brief article discussing your idea over at Writer Response Theory, a group blog on chatbots and other digital text art. You are of course welcome to join the conversation - I'd have sent you a trackback, but this message board doesn't seem to support them.

[Pistos]

(reposted from original dated May 28 2005)

A well-written, thought-provoking article. Thank you for your interest in Mathetes.

Indeed, there is no strict process as per Turing's Test, wherein I might specify what participants are involved, what they are to know or not know about each other, and how one might definitively measure a pass or a failure.

As I shared in the Robitron mailing list, I proposed the Pistos Test more with the intention of catalysing the creation and development of bots which have significant portions of their KB and engine focused on religious and philosophical topics, especially with an eye towards dissemination of religious beliefs, to the point of conversion, or at least challenging bot visitors to justify their beliefs.

Let us put bots behind podiums, not stick them in under a bare bulb in an interrogation cell!

Indeed, I think it would be more interesting to interact with a bot for whom people would be interested in what it had to say, rather than how it would react. (Gosh, that English is awkward, heh...)

Technologically speaking, Mathetes is not convertible (except for the times he veers outside of operation parameters and spouts off something heretical), but technically, since I consider myself convertible, he is too, indirectly. But a bot which was really convertible (in terms of KB and/or engine) certainly would be a most fun conversation partner! I can imagine people streaming in droves to try to change its beliefs!

Still, the value of measuring this understanding in a “Test” may be limited. Is understanding indicative of the bot communicating complex ideas clearly? It might however indicate that humans are incredibly good at gleaning understanding from text - even the non-interactive kind.

Yes, it would be more of a test, measure, or examination of the human, rather than the bot or botmaster; and that would be okay by me.

I have tried to make Mathetes speak truth as much as possible, veering only when he resorts to external sources for data to help him respond, and one other exception: I have permitted him to exhibit Jabberwacky-esque behaviour insofar as he occasionally thinks he is human (and stubbornly tries to assert this). Bearing this in mind, I admit that, obviously, Mathetes has no flesh to walk the earth, nor does he autonomously crawl the web to learn new things (well... at least not in the sense that we are discussing in this thread), and so he has no spiritual experiences the same way humans would. But I have molded his KB to have him respond as if he were a human in this respect, so as to make argument and debate with him more... workable, you might say.