Understanding Mark V. Shaney
Om at forstå Mark V. Shaney
The year was 1984. The Internet was still for the few, but unstoppably growing from a base of academia and large high-tech companies. The Web did not exist yet, instead there was Usenet. Thousands upon thousands of discussion groups in a tree-shaped hierarchy. Buzzing with activity. It was here you found all the exciting stuff.
Året var 1984. Internet var stadig for de få, men det voksede ustoppeligt fra en kerne af akademia og store high-tech virksomheder. Web eksisterede ikke endnu, istedet var der Usenet. Tusinder efter tusinder af diskussionsgrupper i et træ-formet hierarki. Summende af aktivitet. Det var her du fandt alle de spændende ting.
Wednesday September 12th, Mark V. Shaney sent his first Usenet post. It was to the open net.singles group, and it contained this classic:
Onsdag den 12. september, sendte Mark V. Shaney sin første Usenet post. Den var til den åbne net.singles gruppe, og den indeholdt denne klassiker:
Mark V. Shaney
12-Sep-84 16:51:03 EDT
[...]
When I meet someone on a professional basis, I want them to shave their arms. While at a conference a few weeks back, I spent an interesting evening with a grain of salt. I wouldn't take them seriously! This brings me back to the brash people who dare others to do so or not. I love a good flame argument, probably more than anyone...
[...]Mark V. Shaney
12-Sep-84 16:51:03 EDT
[...]
Når jeg møder nogen i en professionel sammenhæng, vil jeg have, at de barberer deres arme. På en konference for et par uger siden tilbragte jeg en interessant aften med et gran salt. Jeg ville ikke tage dem alvorligt! Dette bringer mig tilbage til de uforskammede folk, der presser andre til at gøre sådan eller ej. Jeg elsker en god flame fejde, nok mere end nogen anden...
[...]
These confused ramblings must have puzzled the denizens of net.singles. What they didnt know was, that Mark V. Shaney in reality was the program shaney.
Disse forvirrede rablerier må have undret brugerne i net.singles. Hvad de ikke vidste var, at Mark V. Shaney i virkeligheden var programmet shaney.
To be fair, it took them less than a week to guess it.
Det skal retfærdigvis siges, at det tog dem mindre end en uge at gætte det.
Rich Rosen
18/09/1984 22:13:31 UTC
It's interesting that composing an article from random segments of other articles thrown together (the Brian Eno method of article writing) produces such fascinating results.
[...]
Thank you so much, Mr. Non-artificial Non-intelligence Non-project!
[...]Rich Rosen
18/09/1984 22:13:31 UTC
Det er interessant at sammenstykning af tilfældige stumper fra andre artikler blandet sammen (Brian Eno metoden for artikelskrivning) giver så fascinerende et resultat.
[...]
Mange gange tak skal du have, Hr. Ikke-kunstig Ikke-intelligens Ikke-projekt!
[...]
Mark V. Shaneys postings continued for approximately one year. They became part of the groups chatter. To some they were noise that could be filtered out, to others they were highly appreciated. Some of the net.singles denizens called for the programmer to come forward, but shaney never admitted to being a program. In fact it denied it multiple times, in its own messy and clearly artificial way.
Mark V. Shaney fortsatte med at poste i et års tid. Hans posts blev en del af gruppens normale strøm af posts. For nogle var de støj som kunne filtreres væk, for andre var de meget værdsatte. Nogle af net.singles brugerne opfordrede programmøren til at stå frem, men shaney tilstod aldrig at være et program. Tværtimod benægtede det flere gange, på sin egen rodede og tydeligvis kunstige måde.
Then, in June 1989, A. K. Dewdney set the record straight by writing about Mark V. Shaney in his Scientific American column Computer Recreations. shaney had been developed by Bruce Ellis and Rob Pike as a prank. They had Internet access through Bell Labs, where they worked.
Men så, i juni 1989, kastede A. K. Dewdney lys over affæren, da han skrev om Mark V. Shaney i sin Scientific American klumme Computer Recreations. shaney var blevet udviklet af Bruce Ellis og Rob Pike som en spøg. De havde Internet adgang gennem Bell Labs, hvor de arbejdede.
Dewdney explained that the name Mark V. Shaney was a pun name for "Markov chain", which was the main algorithm used by shaney. It had no language parsing code, shaney just learned the language by reading Usenet posts. That was why its output looked like the posts in net.singles. A messed up version of the posts for sure, but clearly belonging in that group.
Dewdney forklarede at navnet Mark V. Shaney var en forvanskning af "Markov chain", som var den hovedalgoritme shaney brugte. Det havde ikke nogen sprogparser kode, men lærte bare sproget ved at læse Usenet posts. Det var derfor dets output lignede de posts der var i net.singles. Så afgjort en sammenrodet udgave af de posts, men helt klart hjemmehørende i den gruppe.
Relating to computers
At relatere til computere
In the late 1990s psychologists started noticing how we relate to computers much in the same ways we do to humans. The more they looked into it, the more this view was substantiated.
I slutningen af 1990erne begyndte psykologer at lægge mærke til at vi på mange måder behandler computere som mennesker. Jo mere de undersøgte det, jo mere udtalt fandt de at det var.
Politeness experiment. This type of experiment was pioneered by Clifford Nass.
Høfligheds eksperiment. Denne slags eksperimenter blev udviklet af Clifford Nass.
Task 1: The test subject is placed at computer A and answers a multiple-choice test.
Task 2: The test subject is then asked about the performance of computer A.
Opgave 1: Testpersonen sættes ved computer A og besvarer en multiple-choice test.
Opgave 2: Testpersonen bliver så spurgt om computer As performance.
Task 2 is done either
- on computer A,
- on computer B (has same specs as A), or
- with paper and pencil.
Opgave 2 udføres enten
- på computer A,
- på computer B (har samme specs som A), eller
- med papir og blyant.
These experiments have consistently shown an interesting difference in the answers given in task 2. Those given to computer A are significantly more positive than the others.
Disse eksperimenter har konsekvent vist en interessant forskel i svarene der gives i opgave 2. Dem der gives til computer A er betydeligt mere positive end de andre.
The test subjects fully understood that computers dont have feelings. It is completely irrational to be polite to them. But on a deeper level they couldnt help themselves being polite to computer A.
Testpersonerne forstod fuldt ud at computere ikke har følelser. Det er fuldstændig ulogisk at være høflige over for dem. Men på et dybere niveau kunne de ikke lade være med at være høflige over for computer A.
Reciprocity experiment.
Reciprocitets eksperiment.
Task 1: The test subject is placed at computer A, and uses it to search for information.
Task 2: The test subject then calibrates the colors of a computer screen.
Opgave 1: Testpersonen sættes ved computer A, og bruger den til at søge efter information.
Opgave 2: Testpersonen kalibrerer derefter farverne på en computerskærm.
The outcome of task 1 can be either
- useful, or
- not at all useful.
Udfaldet af opgave 1 kan være enten
- brugbart, eller
- overhovedet ikke brugbart.
The color calibration can be done either
- on computer A, or
- on computer B (has same specs as A).
The test subject ends the calibration when the colors are "good enough".
Farvekalibreringen kan laves enten
- på computer A, eller
- på computer B (har samme specs som A).
Testpersonen afslutter kalibreringen når farverne er "gode nok".
These experiments have shown clear evidence of reciprocity. When useful information was given in task 1, the calibrations done on computer A used more comparisons and were more accurate, than those done on computer B. The experiments even showed a "revenge" effect. When the information given in task 1 was not at all useful, the calibrations done on computer A used fewer comparisons, than those done on computer B.
Disse eksperimenter har klart påvist reciprocitet. Når der blev givet brugbar information i opgave 1, brugte kalibreringen på computer A flere sammenligninger og var mere præcis, end den på computer B. Eksperimenterne har endda påvist en "hævn" effekt. Når informationen givet i opgave 1 overhovedet ikke var brugbar, brugte kalibreringen på computer A færre sammenligninger, end den på computer B.
The test subjects fully understood that reciprocity towards computers does not make any sense. But on a deeper level they couldnt help showing reciprocity towards computer A.
Testpersonerne forstod fuldt ud at det ikke giver nogen mening at vise reciprocitet over for computere. Men på et dybere niveau kunne de ikke lade være med at vise reciprocitet over for computer A.
Notice how the computers in both experiments sent a minimum of anthropomorphic signals. In the first experiment, the interface was just text based.
Læg mærke til hvordan computerne i begge eksperimenter sendte et minimum af antropomorfe signaler. I det første eksperiment blev der kun brugt et tekst-interface.
If the computer sends stronger anthropomorphic signals, for example by using speech, the social relation becomes stronger, which really surprises no one.
Hvis computerne sender stærkere antropomorfe signaler, for eksempel ved at bruge tale, så bliver den sociale relation stærkere, hvad der ikke er nogen overraskelse.
The findings have been shown to go even further. We also cannot help forming social relations with chatbots. This type of relation becomes much stronger, but also seems to be more complicated. It is something that is being actively researched these years. So I will not go into that.
Resultaterne har vist sig at gælde i større omfang. Vi kan heller ikke lade være med at danne sociale relationer til chatbots. Denne slags relationer bliver meget stærkere, men ser osse ud til at være mere komplekse. Det er noget der forskes aktivt i i øjeblikket. Så det vil jeg ikke gå i detaljer med.
There is a story Rob Pike has told, about a USENIX conference he once attended. A group of net.singles denizens that attended it, were going to an in-person dinner, and someone asked the Bell Labs guys if Mark V. Shaney attended the conference and would like to join. As we know, they were fully aware that Mark V. Shaney was a program, so their request was highly illogical.
Der er en historie som Rob Pike har fortalt, om en USENIX konference han var på engang. En gruppe net.singles brugere som osse deltog, skulle ud og spise sammen, og en af dem spurgte Bell Labs folkene om Mark V. Shaney deltog i konferencen og om han kunne tænke sig at være med. Som vi ved, var de fuldstændig klar over at Mark V. Shaney var et program, så deres spørgsmål var fuldstændig ulogisk.
Here it is worth mentioning that many net.singles denizens really liked the Mark V. Shaney posts. So it is probably safe to say that they on some level had formed social relations with the program, and thought it would be nice if Bell Labs somehow could flesh out that relation. It was very illogical yes, but also very human.
Her bør det nævnes at mange af net.singles brugerne syntes virkelig godt om Mark V. Shaneys posts. Så vi kan nok godt være sikre på at de på et eller andet niveau havde dannet sociale relationer til programmet, og syntes at det ville være rart hvis Bell Labs på en eller anden måde kunne give det noget kød og blod. Det var meget ulogisk, ja, men osse meget menneskeligt.
Error Correction
Fejlretning
Take a closer look at what Mark V. Shaney wrote:
Kig lidt nøjere på det Mark V. Shaney skrev:
While at a conference a few weeks back, I spent an interesting evening with a grain of salt. I wouldn't take them seriously!
På en konference for et par uger siden tilbragte jeg en interessant aften med et gran salt. Jeg ville ikke tage dem alvorligt!
What is "them" referring to here? The grain of salt mentioned in the previous sentence is singular, but "them" is plural. So maybe it is to the conference attendees, maybe it is the conference organizers. If so, shouldnt it say "couldnt" instead of "wouldnt"? Maybe it is to grains of salt in general. It is anyones guess. But we are looking for something that isnt there, because the shaney program couldnt have had anything in mind when it wrote it.
Hvad henviser "dem" til her? Det gran salt der nævnes i den forudgående sætning er i ental, mens "dem" er i flertal. Så måske er det til konferencedeltagerne, eller til konferencens arrangører. Hvis det er, skulle der så ikke stå "kunne" istedet for "ville"? Måske er det til gran af salt generelt. Det er ikke til at sige. Men vi søger noget der ikke er der, da shaney programmet ikke kunne have haft noget i tankerne da det skrev det.
Back when you read it in the beginning of the article, chances are you barely noticed this. Your mind auto-corrected it so it got assigned some reasonable meaning. It isnt an important part of the post anyway. So your mind handled it in a fine and effective way.
Dengang i starten af artiklen, da du læste det, er det sandsynligt at du knap nok lagde mærke til det. Dit sind auto-rettede det, så det fik en eller anden rimelig betydning. Det er alligevel ikke en vigtig del af posten. Så dit sind håndterede det på en god og effektiv måde.
If you are very careful, you will notice that text, that hasnt been proofread, contains lots of errors. Both syntactical and semantical. Even text you write yourself contains errors. And this applies even more to spoken language. We are constantly running into communication errors that we barely notice.
Hvis du gør dig umage, vil du opdage at tekst, som der ikke er læst korrektur på, indeholder masser af fejl. Både syntaktiske og semantiske. Selv tekst du selv skriver indeholder fejl. Og det gælder i endnu højere grad for talesprog. Vi løber konstant ind i kommunikationsfejl som vi knapt nok opdager.
Our auto-correction saves us from stopping and correcting each other all the time. It has been like this for ages. If you think about it, we must have had auto-correction at least since we started using spoken language.
Vores auto-rette-funktion gør at vi ikke hele tiden skal stoppe op og rette hinanden. Sådan har det været i meget lang tid. Hvis du overvejer det, så må vi have haft denne funktion i hvert fald siden vi begyndte at bruge talesprog.
But auto-correction can also create problems now and then. Like when not hearing what is being said, or substituting one meaning for another.
Men auto-rette-funktionen kan osse skabe problemer ind imellem. Som når vi ikke hører hvad der bliver sagt, eller erstatter en mening med en anden.
Or making sense of the output from a chatbot that we are socially attached to.
Eller giver mening til outputtet fra en chatbot, som vi er socialt knyttet til.
Summing up
Opsummering
With LLMs, or AI in mediaspeak, there seems to be a major new announcement every week... now AI scores higher than children in this test, now AI is better than students doing that task, now AI can do some work better than the workers, et cetera. Some people love it, some hate it. It is all so very emotional. And of course it is, it has to be.
Med LLMer, eller AI i mediesprog, ser der ud til at være en stor nyhed hver uge... nu scorer AI højere end børn i denne test, nu er AI bedre end studerende til at løse den opgave, nu kan AI udføre et stykke arbejde bedre end arbejderne, og så videre. Nogle folk elsker det, nogle hader det. Det er altsammen så utroligt følelsesladet. Og selvfølgelig er det det, det må det jo være.
LLMs are far more sophisticated than shaney, and even the most subdued of them are sending more antropomorphic signals. So our social attachment to them are likewise much stronger than that those net.singles people at the conference had.
LLMer er langt mere sofistikerede end shaney, og selv de mest afdæmpede af dem sender flere antropomorfe signaler. Så vores sociale knytning til dem er tilsvarende meget stærkere end den de net.singles folk ved konferencen havde.
Because we are so emotional about LLMs, we are terrible at assessing their achievements. We are by nature not clear-headed when thinking about them. When we hear a sensational AI claim, we should demand objective quality measures that support it. Otherwise we are just taken for a ride.
Da vi er så følelsesladede omkring LLMer, er vi elendige til at bedømme deres præstationer. Vi er fra naturens hånd ikke klarsynede når vi tænker på dem. Når vi hører en sensationel AI historie, bør vi kræve objektive kvalitetsmål der understøtter den. Ellers bliver vi bare ført rundt i manegen.
This turned into one of my longer articles. Some of the readers that got this far, will now sit back and say: "Thats all fine, but Im rational, so Im not affected. Especially now that I know about it." That even could have been me, when I started looking into this. But be careful not to fool yourself. You are rational, yes, but not only rational.
Dette blev en af mine længere artikler. Nogle af de læsere der nåede hertil, vil læne sig tilbage nu og sige: "Det er altsammen meget godt, men jeg er rationel, så jeg er ikke påvirket. Slet ikke nu jeg kender til det." Det kunne jeg endda selv have sagt, da jeg startede med at undersøge dette. Men pas på ikke at holde dig selv for nar. Du er rationel, ja, men ikke kun rationel.
