Login
You're viewing the mastodonapp.uk public feed.
  • Nov 1, 2026, 5:58 AM

    @990000 @SmudgeTheInsultCat it's quite simple. You can build a simple version yourself. Take a bunch of text files, count how often each word pair occurs versus the total number of word pairs: that's your frequency table. Now start from a word (the input) and from there close the next one by random number generation and going over the frequency table of pairs where the first of your seed, until you find the matching pair: that gives you the next word, repeat with the second as seed, forever. To make it stop, also record in the frequency table how often a word is terminal (has no next word), and stop generating when your random generator hits the terminal “pair”.

    Congratulations, you got yourself a simple Markov chain. The only difference is that when you throw resources at the problem you can have longer chains (“deep” learning), and train (build the frequency tables) on more texts.

    💬 4🔄 12⭐ 31

Replies

  • 💬 2🔄 1⭐ 10
  • 💬 0🔄 2⭐ 10
  • Nov 1, 2026, 8:02 AM

    @notsoloud @990000 @SmudgeTheInsultCat indeed. These bots are surprisingly effective. Markov chain bots were often used for fun and entertainment in IRC channels and sometimes they managed to come out with truly brilliant and in context “original” phrases even with the extremely simple structure they had. Knowing how they work really removes the magic, but it still manages to surprise —and maybe that's just a brain hack: let's not forget that people used to feel a connection even with ELIZA, although that's possibly because they never had the opportunity to find someone who would listen to them and show interest before.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 7
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 1
  • 💬 1🔄 1⭐ 6
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Nov 1, 2026, 12:38 PM

    People inclined to believe that this description is accurate should be aware that it's sort of like explaining an internal combustion engine by saying "It's simple. You just put some petrol in a box and then set it on fire." It's sort of approximately near the truth in a way, but it's missing almost everything that's interesting about the principles by which the machine operates. Which are interesting even though they're not necessary in deciding that we'd be better off without such machines.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Nov 2, 2026, 10:47 AM

    @kbal @SmudgeTheInsultCat @990000 @oblomov it’s kind of like putting petrol in a box and setting fire to it, plus a bunch of complex engineering to attempt to turn this stupid and resource wasting idea into something that is usable in spite of the poisonous to humans side effects. The analogy even holds when we say that you shouldn’t leave a human operating it alone in a room for too long.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1