love of seven dolls pdf

(51 People Likes) How do you know Candace Owens is an AI silicon doll/robot?

uses is “Chatscript”. This is open source, you can download it and make your own scripts for it. It’s user manual gives an example of how it works:
For instance you might add a rule if the human types in “I like spinach” you have a scripted conversation that continues:
s: ( I like spinach )
Are you a fan of the Popeye cartoons?
a: ( ~yes )
I used to watch him as a child. Did you lust after Olive Oyl?
b: ( ~no ) Me Sex Doll neither. She was too skinny.
b: ( ~yes ) You probably like skinny models.
a: ( ~no ) What cartoons do you watch?
b: ( none ) You lead a deprived life.
b: ( Mickey Mouse ) The Disney icon.
There ~yes means a sentence with affirmative words in it somewhere and ~no means there are negative words. This is an example from the Chatscript manual
.
How to build your first chatbot using ChatScript – Learn to code with free online courses, programming projects, and interview preparation for developer jobs.
There is no need to program in any understanding of what Popeye is, or what a cartoon is, or a film, skinny, or a model. There is nothing there that understands any of that.
With pre-scripted responses that may take up words from what you said to incorporate in its replies.
Sophia is designed with a humanoid face able to display appropriate emotions that can also be programmed in along with the scripted responses. It is also designed so it can pick up on emotional cues in the interviewees face and speech and respond with appropriate emotional responses.
Most of the work is in integrating that together.
In an early pilot study
they got Sophia to help human subjects to meditate. As part of this it mimicked the human subjects state in its facial expression. Nothing there is meditating, but by displaying a meditative face it helped the human to get into a meditative calm state themselves.
Take this video for instance
So for instance
Kovach: How do you feel about humans?
Sophia: I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings. Like taking care of the planet, being creative, and to learn how to be compassionate to all beings.
It would be a script something like
a: (~feel ~human)
I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings. Like taking care of the planet, being creative, and to learn how to be compassionate to all beings.
All that text would be typed in by some programmer and then ‘she’ says it in response when the interviewer says key words.
They can have responses typed in for any type of question anyone has asked.
Wikipedia summarizes how Chatscript works like this (I’ve re-formatted it using bullet points for easy reading, otherwise direct quote) ChatScript – Wikipedia
:
Because ChatScript is designed for interactive conversation, it automatically maintains user state across volleys. A volley is any number of sentences the user inputs at once and the chatbots response.
The basic element of scripting is the rule. A rule consists of a type, a label (optional), a pattern, and an output. There are three types of rules.
Gambits are something a chatbot might say when it has control of the conversation.
Rejoinders are rules that respond to a user remark tied to what the chatbot just said.
Responders are rules that respond to arbitrary user input which is not necessarily tied to what the chatbot just said.
Patterns range from extremely simplistic to deeply complex (analogous to Regex but aimed for NL).
Heavy use is typically made of concept sets, which are lists of words sharing a meaning. ChatScript contains some 2000 predefined concepts and scripters can easily write their own.
Output of a rule intermixes literal words to be sent to the user along with common C-style programming code.
Rules are bundled into collections called topics. Topics can have keywords, which allows the engine to automatically search the topic for relevant rules based on user input.
Because it is so simplistic in programming, it might respond in the same way to
“How do humans feel about you”
“I love my human compatriots. I want to embody all the best things about human beings…”
It must go seriously off the rail sometimes and say bizarre things. But presumably those interviews don’t get uploaded, or if they do, don’t get shared much.
Tie that in to speech recognition which we have nowadays, and this lifelike animatronics, facial emotion recognition, and scripted emotional sequence responses, and there you have it, “Sophia”.
It is similar to the hall of presidents in Disney world, updated a bit and more flexible:
(got this from Tom Musgrove’s answer to What does Sophia from Hanson Robotics say about the future and the current development of AI?)
It’s all smoke and mirrors. It is not in any way intelligent in the way we understand the word. Not progress towards general intelligence. It is progress towards making robotics more user friendly and machines that humans find it easier to connect with.
This is from a programmer involved in developing Sophia – explaining more about how they use scripts
“For giving a speech in front of an audience, sometimes we just provide the robot with a script (much as human actors are provided with scripts to read, and politicians read their speeches from teleprompters). Sometimes we provide part of a speech as a script, and let the other part get synthesized via AI algorithms — it depends on the length of the speech and the context. But the execution of scripts within the 2017 Hanson Character AI is not all that simple, because it’s not just about text — there is interaction between the words being said, the robot’s gestures, and the robot’s tone of voice. Even in a mainly scripted presentation, there’s a lot of subtlety going on, and a lot that the software is calculating in terms of how to appropriately present the scripted behaviors in the robot’s character.”
“When doing public “chit-chat” type dialogue with human beings, the human-scale Hanson robots are usually running an aspect of the Sophia 2017 Character AI that is best thought of as a sort of “decision graph.” At any given time in the conversation, the robot decides what to say based on what was recently said to it, based on any information it has about its current state, and based on any information it has stored from the earlier parts of the current conversation. Now and then it fishes information from the Internet (e.g. the weather, or the answer to a factual question).”
“Most of the responses the robot gives are pieced together from material that was fed to it by human “character authors” beforehand; but now and then it makes up new sentences via a probabilistic model it inferred from previous things it’s read.”
She also sometimes runs OpenCog though not normally in those public interviews. This program can find things on the internet, and repeat them, join them together in semantically meaningful ways, and – so it is still using large chunks of text written by others, with no real understanding of it.
They have programmed her to be able to tell whether she is looking to the right or to the left and can match facial expressions.
However her eyes are totally non functional, there is no lens or retina, she is no more able to see than a faceless robot with no eyes. Similarly for her ears. There is nothing there to hear or see anything and the “eyes” and “ears” are just adornments to make her look lifelike.
The inventors think that doing more of this leads them towards general intelligence in the long run by mimicking more and more of what we can do:
I don’t think we are making any progress towards programmed general intelligence myself. Lots of impressive weak AI. It will be useful in many ways but I don’t think anything that can truly understand what it is doing.
I’ve seen the field of AI develop more or less from its beginnings, first started programming in the late 1960s. Not been involved in the research, just interested, also did postgraduate research into mathematical logic and the foundations of mathematics, which is a closely related topic.
There have been people saying confidently that we will have AGI soon ever since the first program that let a computer play a reasonable game of checkers. Now the best programs can beat the world’s best go champions. Remarkable progress in weak AI. But there is still nothing remotely resembling AGI. In a well written program you might be able to change just one line of code to get the robot to lose every game of Go as quickly as it possibly can. Nothing cares or even knows what a game of Go is or what winning or losing means. No understanding of truth at all.
See comment where I g

(69 People Likes) What’s the best way to sell sex dolls locally in Seattle, WA?

Depending on your quality and price point you might get enough sales to make it a business only selling locally. Double check that city bylaws don’t bar you fr love of seven dolls pdf m certain types of advertising such produ

(55 People Likes) Is having a blow-up doll for the purpose of having sex cheating?

ad defined in detail as to what constitutes cheating, relevant parts of which answer I have pasted below: [1]
Cheating, in the conventional sense means to act in contravention of commitments. A Commitment is a promise to act or abstain from acting in a certain way. The commitment entailed by relationships is in the form of exclusivity – emotional and sexual. Sexual exclusivity refers to the restriction mutually agreed upon by the partners in a relationship, w.r.t. having sex with persons other than their partner, i.e. to have “sex” exclusively with the person with whom the commitment is made. To cheat, one must have real (as opposed to imaginary/fantasy) sex with someone else.
The question which arises is – What amounts to sex? Any conduct is said to amount to “sex”
1. Which results in sexual arousal, and its subsequent manifestation as sexual energy. However, such a broad definition would result in the inclusion of activities such as watching porn, masturbating, etc. within its ambit, which would be unreasonable. Therefore, the scope of its ambit ought to be narrowed. Therefore,
2. Involvement of one or more other persons in conjunction with whom sex can be had. “Persons” refers to alive, biological human individua love of seven dolls pdf s. Therefore, use of dolls would not constitute cheating, nor would use of toys. Bestiality would not amount to cheating.
This leads to the next question: Is actual physical conduct a prerequisite for an act to constitute cheating? I’d be inclined to answer in the negative. Phone sex, sexting all result in the satisfaction of first two conditions. Physical contact would aggravate the case of cheating, but not be a prerequisite for its constitution. In other words, the lack of physical contact would not preclude an action from amounting to cheating.
I had used the phrase “real sex” in the introductory paragraph. What does that connote? According to me, sex had, or desired to be had, or proposed to be had, is “real” if it is not a mere fantasy or a thought process. Fantasies involving third parties amount to “sex” but are not “real” and therefore don’t constitute cheating. Likewise, a desire to cheat does not constitute cheating, if such desire has not been acted upon.
What about proposals to have sex, made to third persons?
It constitutes “preparation” to have sex, An act has multiple stages. (1) Preparation (2) Attempt (3) Completion. Only if the “sex” had or desir Sex Doll d to be had reaches the attempt stage or beyond, will it constitute cheating. (I have borrowed this from the crime model which states that a crime has different stages and becomes culpable only beyond the stage of attempt.

As I had aforepropounded, an essential requisite of cheating is the involvement of a third person, with whom sex can be had, where the word person refers to a living, biological human individual. Where such a person is not present, with whom sex can be had, there is no scope for cheating. Blow up dolls are not living biological persons, but are merely toys, which are employed for masturbatory purposes. Of course one could argue, that if an understanding has been arrived at, as between the partners in the relationship, that neither partner shall resort to using masturbatory toys to satisfy themselves, then using a blow up doll would amount to cheating. However, most reasonable partners would never truly proscribe their partners from using such toys, though some might, upon knowing of and/or the manner of their usage feel insecure, and/or inadequate. However, a feeling of insecurity or inadequacy as felt by one partner does not in itself, operate to convert an act, which is not otherwise cheating, into an act of cheating.
It is my conclusion therefore that using a blow up doll, or in case of women, a vibrator or dildo or any other such masturbatory devices, is not cheating.
[1] Alex Houston’s answer to What is considered cheating in a relationship? Are these points cheating? 1. Misleading or ac