5
$\begingroup$

These guys here: https://www.patreon.com/AiAngel are saying that they've created a AI who can chat and stream. As the so-called administrator "Rogue" said:

enter image description here

this chat/streamer bot are no fake. Also, there's more about the dynamics of this chat/streamer bot on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyFwjHQhlgo&t=463s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtvivssqLhE

Considering that videos I realy think that this bot is totaly fake. I mean, I think that even the most advanced AI bot do not get even close to a real conversation like this one.

Now, of course that you can say that this is a artistic project or something, but the people behind all of this are on Patreon, and the people who are paying to these guys possibly are getting totally fooled, which is a serious thing when we're talking about real money.

So, is AIAngel a real bot? (With this question I'm spreading this possible fake to community)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for asking this question and welcome to SE:AI! (I've adjusted the header for searchability--hopefully anyone googling for more info on this supposed bot with find your question!) $\endgroup$ – DukeZhou Apr 29 '19 at 18:17
  • $\begingroup$ Neither the quote you give nor the videos claim that AIAngel is using any AI technique. At worst, it seems that it is being deliberately left open in order to trick the unwary (based solely on the name). Could you link to any claim that AIAngel is any kind of AI is by the author? As far as I can see, it is just a modern YouTube version of Max Headroom - see. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Headroom_(character) $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater May 6 '19 at 18:29
  • $\begingroup$ AI = Artificial Influencer. They never claimed this has anything to do with Artificial Intelligence, so this question doesn't even belong here. $\endgroup$ – stackexchange_account1111 Mar 26 at 0:31
  • $\begingroup$ @stackexchange_account1111 I disagree because the presentation of AIAngel is deliberately jokey and vague, making it hard to tell. The fact that more than one person is getting confused justifies an "Is this actually AI?" question on this site. Sadliy the accepted answer is nonsense. $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater Mar 27 at 9:53
  • $\begingroup$ Angelica is too good at visual recognition and sound recognition to be a program. A program would glitch much more and dont see the burrito and other stuff. $\endgroup$ – Robert Apr 4 at 10:56
4
$\begingroup$

To answer the question if AIangel is fake or real we have to describe first what the idea is behind a human-chatbot-conversation. A well known chatbot is Eliza (created in 1966, easy for reverse engineering).[1] The human can do the conversation with Eliza in two ways. The first one is to assume that Eliza is a computer program and the human has to show that the bot doesn't pass the turing test. For example, we can ask Eliza “what is the weather today?” and if the software doesn't know the answer, then it's fake. The other interaction option is to estimate that Eliza is a real human and try to do what the chatbot wants.

The same interaction situation is available in case of AIangel. Asking if the shown avatar is a real human or not is only one possible way to play the game. The more elaborated experiment is to assume that it's a real human and try to investigate what the needs of AIangel are. We can ignore the turing test and go directly into the conversation. Don't ask what the chatbot can do for you, ask what you can do for the bot.

[1] Pereira, Maria João, et al. "Chatbots' Greetings to Human-Computer Communication." arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.06479 (2016). pdf

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I am not sure why this is accepted or upvoted, as although it gives background to one kind of test that could be done, it doesn't attempt to answer the question. If anything it validates the incorrect assumption in the question that the AiAngel project is an attempt to do any kind of real AI. $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater Mar 27 at 9:55
3
$\begingroup$

No, AiAngel is not a bot. It's Rouge's software that changes his voice along with facial recognition software which tracks his movement and copies it to the avatar.

That being said, he has created a very entertaining channel and line of work for himself. By looking at the videos, you can see that he is a true genius at work. Single handedly puts on all hats for that project, from hardware infrastructure development, to software design to graphic art to acting and video editing. Truely one of the great minds of this era.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This should be the accepted answer. I've been trying to figure out who made this and now I know it is a developer named Rouge. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – Mark Entingh Apr 2 at 22:07
1
$\begingroup$

Without being able to interact with the bot, a Turing test is impossible.

  • Based on the manner in which this supposed bot is presented, in videos as opposed to an interactive medium where users can interact with the bot, the only reasonable conclusion is hoax.

This assessment is supported by the overly sexualized rendering of the bot combined with requests for donations.

In order for this project to be considered legitimate, the creators would have to be more transparent about the methods and allow the general public, or at least reliable experts, to interact with the bot.

(Compare to IBM's Tay and Zo.)


Turing Tests & Pornbots

The nature of Turing tests is that they are subjective. A bot that an adult human could easily recognize as non-human, a child might perceive as human--the child does not have the requisite knowledge to form a strategy to expose the bot as an automaton.

There is an idea that "pornbots" have been passing the Turing Test for many years now, predicated on the hormonal imperatives of those interacting with the bots, which greatly inhibits their judgement. (The purpose of pornbots is to get consumers to spend money. Their continued existence suggests they do have utility in this regard, and that utility can be seen as a confirmation of the bots passing the text in a specific context.)


Automation Hoaxes

One of the most famous machine intelligence hoaxes was The Turk, presented as a Chess playing automaton. The supposed machine astounded late 18th century audiences with its skill, but it was later revealed to be a human in a box.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Whilst I agree that the chatbot is not driven by AI (at least as far as perception and conversation, where it appears to be just some kind of rigged avatar), as far as I can see the author makes no such claim for it, at least not from anything linked by the OP. Which makes it difficult to declare a hoax here. $\endgroup$ – Neil Slater May 6 '19 at 18:58
1
$\begingroup$

It's pretty easy to tell what's going on with AI Angel Angelica. If you've watched some of the videos, you'll notice the steady progression of the real-time rendering. The first videos were really jittery and there were a lot of movements (awkward mouth movements, fingers unable to move, etc) to the more recent ones with realistic-ish mouth movements and full finger movements. So, they started off with a motion capture program with a special suit to capture movement. As they progressed, the suit got a lot more sensors and the programming itself was streamlined. As far as it being artificial intelligence, no, it's not. There's a person in a suit talking to a camera that's been programmed to pick up movement and translate it onto an avatar. Based on the movements from the most recent video, there are sensors on a few parts of the face, neck, shoulders, elbows, waist, hips, knees and feet and probably 3 on each finger, 2 on each thumb. Based upon the camera movements the programming is designed to follow the avatar, which is why it seems to follow her when she moves around and additionally, she's able to turn around while the camera remains in place. There is probably a face camera attached to the suit to track the minute facial changes (think of the movie Avatar) and two or three cameras mounted around the area to pick up the rest of the sensors (which could just be colored dots).

The setup is probably a greenroom with furniture in some of the places the furniture shows up in the 3d 'room' she's in. There is probably another camera or sensor that is used so she can move around when she shows off her computer setup. The model probably just uses a button to switch between them. I don't know if the voice is real or altered, but it has changed over the course of the videos. If it is real, the model is probably female speaking in real-time. Whether or not the model is also the developer is another question. I don't know.

Regardless, the real-time rendering and advanced 3d space analysis requires a pretty hefty computer setup, so whoever is doing this is on the level of a professional with professional-grade computing power. It is WAY beyond anything I'm capable of at the moment, so my hat's absolutely off to the developer and/or model. Extremely impressive.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I think it's a real bot. I've seen people talking about how it's rendering has improved over time and they claimed that was an improvement in the Motion Capture suit. I think that's simply because the program has improved over time. Imagine YOU created AI Angel (assuming it's really AI), would you be more worried about it's functionality or it's realism first? I would want it to act real before it looks real. If you listen closely, the voice has also slowly been improving as well, which makes sense for both explanations. If fake, the voice changer improved, but if real they simply gave it a network of human communication to listen to and compare itself to. It's really quite easy (conceptually) to create a program that learns. If you want to learn more about how easy it can be to make an AI teach itself I recommend Code Bullet on Youtube. He has a variety of videos in which he creates AI's meant to learn how to function in a game at the highest performance.

I know I covered evidence of both sides of the question, but I personally (as a nerdy boy) believe Angelica is really an A.I.

|improve this answer|||||
$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.