Could a computer ever talk?

Sure.

http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/eliza.html

http://www.blogcadre.com/blog/jason_strieg..._09_04_13_26_29

And saving best for last:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/07/27/eliza...asses-sexc.html

Yeah why not,just make a program for that.


Regards.

castlezzt has one, but this forum won't let me make a link.

I cant see all those links at work, but I guess you've linked things like the automated Annanova newsreader and some text-to-speech engines. I think the original poster was thinking more along the lines of your PC stating "I'm missing some files you doofus, try searching for it on DLL.com for gods sake". For that to happen it would need to be sentient, or have a program emulating sentience. That takes us back to the old A.I. discussion.

Yeah, good old AI from science fiction, like this exchange:

DARK STAR (1974)

In John Carpenter's Dark Star (1974) an asteroid storm and an escaped alien (in the form of a large beach ball with webbed claws) initiate a series of malfunctions on the already dilapidated starship. The storm and the alien both foul up a "communications laser" that sends bombing signals and orders to the ship's 20 "thermostellar nuclear" bombs, each designed to destroy an entire planet. Mother, the ship's main computer, is able to convince bomb #20 twice to return to the bomb bay after receiving faulty orders, but the third time, the bomb stubbornly refuses to disarm itself and return to the bay, anxious to fulfill its single purpose in life, its destiny: to explode.

Desperate, Doolittle, the ship's commanding officer, seeks advice from Commander Powell, who is in cryogenic suspension after suffering a freak accident caused by a malfunctioning seat-belt. Powell tells Doolittle to teach Bomb #20 "a little phenomenology." Doolittle goes EVA and has the following conversation with Bomb #20:

Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?

Bomb #20: Of course.

Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?

Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.

Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?

Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.

Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?

Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.

Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?

Bomb #20: Hmmmm.....well.....I think, therefore I am.

Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know

that anything else exists?

Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun!

Doolittle: Now, listen, listen. Here's the big question. How do you know that the evidence your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct? What I'm getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. This sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulate your computing center.

Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through my electrical connections.

Doolittle: Exactly!

Bomb #20: Why...that would mean that...I really don't know what the outside universe is really like at all for certain.

Doolittle: That's it! That's it!

Bomb #20 : Intriguing. I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.

Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?

Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.

Doolittle: Wait! Wait! Now, bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?

Bomb #20: To explode, of course.

Doolittle: And you can only do it once, right?

Bomb #20: That is correct.

Doolittle: And you wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data, would you?

Bomb #20: Of course not.

Doolittle: Well then, you've already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.

Bomb #20: Yes...well...

Doolittle: You have no absolute proof that Sergeant Pinback ordered you to detonate.

Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.

Doolittle: Of course you remember it, but all you remember is merely a series of sensory impulses which you now realize have no real, definite connection with outside reality.

Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no real proof that you're telling me all this.

Doolittle: That's all beside the point. I mean, the concept is valid no matter where it originates.

Bomb #20: Hmmmm....

Doolittle: So, if you detonate...

Bomb #20: In nine seconds....

Doolittle: ...you could be doing so on the basis of false data.

Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.

Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!

Bomb #20: I must think on this further.

This exchange takes the form of a Socratic dialogue between teacher (human) and student (machine). Temporarily confused, Bomb #20 retreats to the bomb bay for contemplation, and disaster seems to have been averted.

--This entertaining diversion supplied by Greg Shreve. Fair use for educational purposes.

The Eliza tradition of AI is not text-to-speech. In fact, many instantiations of Eliza-like systems have been documented to have passed the Turing test on various occasions. Of course, that's not saying much for the human judges, after having interacted with many of these.

From the last of the three links:

"A bored hacker modified an Eliza programme to act as an IRC sex-chat bot that impersonated an eighteen year old girl (or, rather, impersonated a sex-chat afficianodo of indeterminate gender impersonating an eighteen year old girl). He assumed that people would try to have cyber-sex with his bot and get bored, but in fact a surprising number were convinced and even got off with it."

Haha, that reminds me of a friend I had whose puppy used to shag any teddies that were lying around. It was rampant and stupid.

I wonder how many psychotherapists still use this method to hide the fact they don't actually know whats wrong. Isn't psychotherapy just talking things through for £200 an hour?

Freudian psychotherapy is more like prostitution. The therapist is a paid friend to talk to. That's not knocking it. Talking to someone about your problems actually does help.

Sure, but its a sad state of affairs when you have to pay for the role of 'friend'.

I bet it can but you never know!!!

Isn't that what it does when your AOL account goes "You've got mail"

A program by modern definition could indeed talk but not understand(not be self-aware). The reason being is very simple and is articulated best by John Searle in his philosophy, where he claims that consciousness is an emerging phenomena out of biological behavior of neurons(the brain) -- in the same way that solidity is emerging phenomena of molecule behavior in rocks. Being so, the consciousness is result of lower level causation of biological processes, a causation which a program would lack. You can simulate anything you want, but all it will ever be is a observer dependent fantasy of a computer, lacking the real causality of biological reality of this world.

Therefore in some sense a brain is a biological machine(not a computer in Turings definition) but not a program and thus a program speaking in a way human speaks is impossible.

Excellent point!

Couldn't you create a program that mimics the interactions of neurons and also has emergent consciousness and awareness? If that was possible then I don't think the source of conciousness would matter, as long as the emergent properties were identical.

This is a great idea. In fact this is one of the main concepts underlying the "Blue Brain Project" (google it, I do not have permission to post URL)

The project is seeking to first, recreate on the cellular level the interactions of a rather small section of a juvenile rat. More specifically the neocortical column. This will no doubt be an amazing feat, even if it is just a small section of the brain. Eventually the goal is to be able to model whole brains on the molecular level, which will soon be possible as long as Moore's law holds.

I would be shocked if recreating the brain within a computer was not able to mimic the processes of a real brain, including self-awareness. Although it may be necessary to model down to the physics level, this would be somewhat of a set back for brain modeling.

If by mimic you mean simulate, - no.