Microsoft patent: Creating a conversational chat bot of a specific person(patft.uspto.gov)
patft.uspto.gov
Microsoft patent: Creating a conversational chat bot of a specific person
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=10853717.PN.&OS=PN/10853717&RS=PN/10853717
79 comments
The amount of brain power and financial resources these companies have amassed for the purpose of generating targeted ads or HMIs, is disconcerting.
Maybe it's too much of an Arthur C. Clarke type fantasy but I always wonder what our world would be like if a substantial fraction of these billionaire budgets at Facebook, Google, Microsoft were spent on Natural Sciences, even if with a commercial scope narrowed to Applied Sciences.
Maybe it's too much of an Arthur C. Clarke type fantasy but I always wonder what our world would be like if a substantial fraction of these billionaire budgets at Facebook, Google, Microsoft were spent on Natural Sciences, even if with a commercial scope narrowed to Applied Sciences.
Seems like a less advanced, but clearly more automatable version of the South Korean mother who was able to see her deceased 7-year-old in VR[0][1]. A friend of mine wrote a short story about this sort of thing a couple of years ago[2]. We actually spoke about it, and it got me to wondering what the business model of a service like this could be. Subscribing to receive videos from and communicate with a deceased relative. "Unsubscribing" would be like condemning them to the grave yourself. It's gross and scummy, but I could definitely see it being backed. Money on the table, I guess.
[0]: https://www.pcgamer.com/a-grieving-mother-meets-her-deceased... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uflTK8c4w0c&feature=youtu.be [2]: https://www.ectoplus.com/shorts/replacement/
[0]: https://www.pcgamer.com/a-grieving-mother-meets-her-deceased... [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uflTK8c4w0c&feature=youtu.be [2]: https://www.ectoplus.com/shorts/replacement/
Someone doesn’t necessarily have to be dead for this to work either, which is a little disturbing. Or in my case I want to hook this up to my work Slack so I can take a bathroom break without someone complaining about me being AFK for a couple minutes.
I think you might just need a better job if someone complains about that..
Yep, we’ve seen that episode
https://youtu.be/IWIusSdn1e4
https://youtu.be/IWIusSdn1e4
It would then be another Black Mirror episode, the USS Callister one, where (spoilers:) introvert programmer Matt Damon takes DNA of his colleagues and makes virtual copies of them and imprisons them in his play universe.
Obviously the tech won't be that advanced, but having people have emotional connections to chatbots that they programmed to pretend to be their exes would be... creepy.
On the other hand I can imagine at least one Twitter user who we could put in a virtual playpen and it would benefit mankind.. Virtual Pennsylvania Ave 1600..
Obviously the tech won't be that advanced, but having people have emotional connections to chatbots that they programmed to pretend to be their exes would be... creepy.
On the other hand I can imagine at least one Twitter user who we could put in a virtual playpen and it would benefit mankind.. Virtual Pennsylvania Ave 1600..
That's Jesse Plemons, not Matt Damon. Great episode!
You can have a bot reply with "ah! Give me a second" or something along those lines while you're away. There's no need for a sophisticated solution, as people already know you're a person and are thus not very likely to suspect a bot (assuming you don't tell anyone that is).
I used to do this while botting MUDs. Immortals (administrators) would check up on you occasionally, so first my script would send a "mis-channel" communication to make it look like I was actively talking to someone else, then a quick "Ack, sorry" followed by a pause and a "one second". All while simultaneously sending me an SMS so I can take over the communication stream in person.
Funny. I filed a patent for this same thing in 2015 and it was rejected for not being novel. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160332079A1/en
From looking at your application, you were not patenting a chatbot, but a vastly different thing. The word "chat" only appears once in your application, but only as an input source, not a conversation tool.
The chatbot part was a subset of what I was doing.
It was the patent application supporting Happy Cyborg https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140927011544-42285562-you-a...
The patent app you linked doesn't mention a chatbot in any claims, which is all that matters. Saying it was for some project has zero relevance to the patent system.
Care to list the claims in your patent you think are the same as the MS claims?
Care to list the claims in your patent you think are the same as the MS claims?
"Chatting" is just another kind of action.
So by not mentioning something in patent claims this nonetheless would have patented it?
I don't quite follow. The link to the blog post was just for background information. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
But is a chat bot novel?
Some are. It depends on how they work. Remember utility patents are about how things work, not what they are.
There are probably 1000's of issued patents for chat bots each one claiming different hows.
There are probably 1000's of issued patents for chat bots each one claiming different hows.
It was probably rejected by patentbot2000.
I haven't looked at the google patent listings before. What are the 'Similar Documents' at the bottom about? Black Twitter? https://patents.google.com/scholar/10521028305159378504
I haven't looked at the google patent listings before. What are the 'Similar Documents' at the bottom about? Black Twitter? https://patents.google.com/scholar/10521028305159378504
The problem with making a "digital copy of oneself" for posthumous use is that it can cause a pathological grieving state for your loved ones.
If you are thinking about doing it--don't.
If you are thinking about doing it--don't.
I wish chatbots would follow my dead loved ones to the grave
The current state of chatbots is embarrasingly bad. I still haven't seen a chatbot use-case that can't be solved better with an FAQ section + documentation search and a human as second line of support.
In all fairness I used to hate them but I have seen one or two customer support bots used in a way that definitely helped me get the answers I needed. Perhaps the fact that these bots are generally set up by consultants that understand search rather than some random intern that probably set up the documentation search is the deciding factor there.
I use Alexa on a daily-basis - which can be seen as a chatbot. It provides plenty of useful functionality, especially Alexa-auto which I bought my wife for Christmas. She loves the ability to add items to her todo list whilst driving, asking it questions about the weather, playing music, performing communcation tasks, etc.
> I use Alexa on a daily-basis - which can be seen as a chatbot.
More general virtual assistants (Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri) are at a completely different power level from most chatbots. Most chatbots use cases that I come across are some company thinking that they can replace human support with a language model trained on their custom knowledge base. They expect something as good as Alexa but which also has knowledge about the company's product and the results are always disappointing.
More general virtual assistants (Alexa, Google Assistant, Siri) are at a completely different power level from most chatbots. Most chatbots use cases that I come across are some company thinking that they can replace human support with a language model trained on their custom knowledge base. They expect something as good as Alexa but which also has knowledge about the company's product and the results are always disappointing.
I don't get the hate for chatbots. Sure they are not perfect yet (it's a hard problem to solve!) but I see them as early-stage technology, which will improve over time.
No comment on this news article though.
No comment on this news article though.
Chatbot mania began in 2016, it’s now 2021 what major improvements have there been? What’s one website that has a good chatbot?
Chatbots are great until they don’t work which is all the time. You need to ask questions in a specific way to get an answer. From a user point of view it’s a terrible experience. Most companies don’t value the time of their users that’s why chatbots have been deployed on many websites.
Chatbots are great until they don’t work which is all the time. You need to ask questions in a specific way to get an answer. From a user point of view it’s a terrible experience. Most companies don’t value the time of their users that’s why chatbots have been deployed on many websites.
I've personally played some text adventure games from the 90's with better input recognition than some customer service chatbots. They almost feel like trying to figure out the commands from those games sometimes.
'I need help with payment'
Sorry can you repeat your question
'Payment information'
Sorry can you repeat your question
'Help with payment information'
You need help?
Directing you to our FAQ section where you can get help for our most common questions.
'I need help with payment'
Sorry can you repeat your question
'Payment information'
Sorry can you repeat your question
'Help with payment information'
You need help?
Directing you to our FAQ section where you can get help for our most common questions.
People don't particularly care if they will improve over time if they are made to deal with broken early-stage technology now.
I remember reading about a startup that already did that. If I recall correctly, it developed organically out of a situation where the founder had actually lost a friend and trained a chat-bot on their email backlog.
Later she realized that there might be a business idea in this.
Does anyone recall that article?
Later she realized that there might be a business idea in this.
Does anyone recall that article?
Sounds a bit like this article: https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memo...
haven't had the time to read all of it again and can't recall all of it, so might not be the one.
haven't had the time to read all of it again and can't recall all of it, so might not be the one.
I don't remember the exact details either but I believe this is it. Thanks for digging it up.
Now, wouldn't that constitute prior art wrt. the patent application?
Now, wouldn't that constitute prior art wrt. the patent application?
Yeah, the origin story described sounds like Replika's.
In case Verge's story isn't the right one, here is another from Quartz that might be the coverage you remember:
https://classic.qz.com/machines-with-brains/1018126/lukas-re...
In case Verge's story isn't the right one, here is another from Quartz that might be the coverage you remember:
https://classic.qz.com/machines-with-brains/1018126/lukas-re...
Was the friend also an employee? The tone of the sentence sounds quite different if you replace those words: from touching to dystopian
> situation where the founder had actually lost an employee and trained a chat-bot on their email backlog.
> situation where the founder had actually lost an employee and trained a chat-bot on their email backlog.
When the construct laughed, it came through as something else, not laughter, but a stab of cold down Case’s spine.
”Do me a favor, boy.”
“What’s that, Dix?”
“This scam of yours, when it’s over, you erase this goddam thing.”
”Do me a favor, boy.”
“What’s that, Dix?”
“This scam of yours, when it’s over, you erase this goddam thing.”
Black Mirror feels like prior art here...
See also the Dixie Flatline construct from Neuromancer (1984), an AI-reconstruction of a brilliant hacker https://williamgibson.fandom.com/wiki/Construct
Permutation City deals with the artificial consciousnesses too
A work of fiction can count as prior art? It is not like anyone would not have tried to do something similar in practice, before or after that, but the episode itself?
In any case, that episode qualifies both as prior, and art.
In any case, that episode qualifies both as prior, and art.
Yes, there's the waterbed case from Robert Heinlein ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed#Heinlein_descriptions
Exactly. Also I remember some company trying to do that (not sure if before or after the Black Mirror episode)
https://replika.ai/ has been doing this type of work. See the origin story in length on the Lex Fridman AI podcast: https://youtu.be/_AGPbvCDBCk
I know 1 story of not a company but a programmer: https://www.theverge.com/a/luka-artificial-intelligence-memo...
Ars Technica coverage:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/07/luka-...
Isn't a patent a protection for the way it is implemented vs the idea itself?
The lines have blurred. Algorithms have been patented as have things like 1-click purchasing.
Algorithms remain unpatenable.
The claims of this patent recite a chat bot system that does specific things a certain way. If it does require a particular algorithm, the algorithm itself is not protected.
The claims of this patent recite a chat bot system that does specific things a certain way. If it does require a particular algorithm, the algorithm itself is not protected.
And before that, Stanisław Lem's novels.
I'm pretty sure that one Black Mirror episode has prior art on this.
I am pretty sure that I already read about a version of this in a science fiction story written by Charles Sheffield in the 1990s!
Why can this be patented? I mean I also had this idea long ago and it's not anywhere novel.
I told you this was going to happen! Some month ago I wrote a comment predicting exactly this.
The claims are what is patented, not the simplistic headline, nor the discussions that do not analyze the claims in detail.
For all the outrage, not a single post here yet discusses the actual claims.
For all the outrage, not a single post here yet discusses the actual claims.
I created a Markov chain bot from my friend's log files. Is it a "conversational chat bot of a specific person"?
[deleted]
But can it generate automated comments, to capture the spirit of long-gone forums posters?
"It looks like you're grieving. Would you like help with that?"
Can someone contest this patent on the grounds that it is obvious?
I had this exact same idea 2 years ago. My wife said it wasn't worth pursuing. lol
To be fair, this doesn't prove her wrong ... they haven't made money from it yet.
This should not be permitted that someone files a patent of something so common.
That's not what patents should be.
I'm disgusted by how corrupt the system is
I'm disgusted by how corrupt the system is
New proposed rule: All patents must be accompanied by a working prototype that encompasses all claims. Anything not implemented in the prototype is not in the patent.
> New proposed rule: All patents must be accompanied by a working prototype that encompasses all claims. Anything not implemented in the prototype is not in the patent.
Interesting rule. I'm not sure that a single prototype per patent is reasonable, though, given that claims may cover mutually exclusive claims and divergent use-cases.
A set of prototypes that collectively cover all claims (though not all possible combinations of claims) might work, except that the hard part might still be reducing to practice a particular combination of claims not in any of the prototypes.
Eg. A patent that has claims for electronic storage and playback of music and claims for a handheld data storage device (each claim embodied separately in prototypes) as well as the combination of a handheld device for electronic storage and playback of music (claim not embodied in a prototype).
I'm not sure how to construct the rules in such a way that you aren't either saddling inventors with the need to produce a huge number of prototypes representing a combinatorial explosion of claims and their combinations, nor allowing patent holders to extort subsequent inventors for inventions that they could never have reduced to practice themselves.
Leaving the determination of which combinations of claims to allow as "reducing to practice is left as an exercise for the engineer" up to the patent examiner still leaves in place the existing misalignment of incentives that the current system has, except it makes applying for patents more expensive.
Interesting rule. I'm not sure that a single prototype per patent is reasonable, though, given that claims may cover mutually exclusive claims and divergent use-cases.
A set of prototypes that collectively cover all claims (though not all possible combinations of claims) might work, except that the hard part might still be reducing to practice a particular combination of claims not in any of the prototypes.
Eg. A patent that has claims for electronic storage and playback of music and claims for a handheld data storage device (each claim embodied separately in prototypes) as well as the combination of a handheld device for electronic storage and playback of music (claim not embodied in a prototype).
I'm not sure how to construct the rules in such a way that you aren't either saddling inventors with the need to produce a huge number of prototypes representing a combinatorial explosion of claims and their combinations, nor allowing patent holders to extort subsequent inventors for inventions that they could never have reduced to practice themselves.
Leaving the determination of which combinations of claims to allow as "reducing to practice is left as an exercise for the engineer" up to the patent examiner still leaves in place the existing misalignment of incentives that the current system has, except it makes applying for patents more expensive.
The claims define the protected inventions. In this example, claim 1 recites a very specific way to implement a chat bot.
"A method for creating a conversational chat bot of a specific entity, the method comprising: receiving a request associated with a specific entity; accessing social data associated with the specific entity, the social data comprising at least one of: images of the specific entity, voice data for the specific entity, conversational data associated with the specific entity, and publicly available information about the specific entity; processing the social data using at least one of machine learning techniques and one or more rule sets, wherein processing the social data comprises: identifying conversation data collected for the specific entity; identifying conversation data collected for one or more entities similar to the specific entity; and determining similarities between the one or more entities and the specific entity using at least one of expression analysis techniques, approval indicators, and characteristics comparisons; using the social data to create a personality index, wherein the personality index comprises personality information for the specific entity; and using the personality index to train a chat bot to interact conversationally using the personality information of the specific entity"
Is this really common?
"A method for creating a conversational chat bot of a specific entity, the method comprising: receiving a request associated with a specific entity; accessing social data associated with the specific entity, the social data comprising at least one of: images of the specific entity, voice data for the specific entity, conversational data associated with the specific entity, and publicly available information about the specific entity; processing the social data using at least one of machine learning techniques and one or more rule sets, wherein processing the social data comprises: identifying conversation data collected for the specific entity; identifying conversation data collected for one or more entities similar to the specific entity; and determining similarities between the one or more entities and the specific entity using at least one of expression analysis techniques, approval indicators, and characteristics comparisons; using the social data to create a personality index, wherein the personality index comprises personality information for the specific entity; and using the personality index to train a chat bot to interact conversationally using the personality information of the specific entity"
Is this really common?
Everything except the personality index step seems like obvious boilerplate for how one would accomplish implementing a chatbot that tries to replicate a particular training corpus.
And not very clear what personality index means in this context.
And not very clear what personality index means in this context.
patents just shouldn't exist at all
The system is not corrupt. The system is authoritarian capitalism controlled by international capital. We can keep asking the wrong questions or act.
(Software) patents are protectionist bullshit and against the notion of a free market
Yes, software should be copyrighted. Ideas should not be patentable.
In terms of the patent, I can't actually read anywhere that says the intent or a use case is specifically to create chatbots for dead loved ones.
The headline is misleading - The technology could be used to create chatbots from your dead loved ones, but that isn't what the patent is about.
The headline is misleading - The technology could be used to create chatbots from your dead loved ones, but that isn't what the patent is about.
Hope it works better than their racist chatbot, Tay.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-twitter-bot-idU...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-twitter-bot-idU...
Even if people will know it is a bot, these people's rational capacities will in most cased be diminished under such circumstances, at best. Many will be easily (emotionally) manipulable, even more than with all the psychological trickery in product advertisement and big data exploitation these days.
Opinion: this clearly crosses the line of criminal behaviors, exploiting people who are clearly in a vulnerable positions (at least more than usual). I think the track record of tech companies rather clearly shows that their promised of taking good care of collected data (and privacy) mean little to nothing. At the end of the day, they do this for profit. That's enough for me to make this cross the line.
Also, what's really the "invention" here? Would something like this ever deserve a patent monopoly? If you take (dead) people's personal data and build a neural net (or any other "AI") to mimic/compliment that data (needed for answering questions), have you not just done what any/every neural net already does? If we're going to call that novel and innovative, then hold my beer ... or is this just again a big tech company abusing the patent system to hijack an obvious (use of) technology, excluding anyone who doesn't belong to their cozy little cross-licensing inbreed family from using what should be free to use in the first place?
#end-of-rant