tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post3480392573124021102..comments2024-03-27T05:04:39.476-07:00Comments on Museum 2.0: Chatbots and Non Player Characters as Instigators for Visitor Feedback and ReflectionNina Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-11761532951425875552008-06-28T18:58:00.000-07:002008-06-28T18:58:00.000-07:00Hey I like talking to dogs too! You're probably aw...Hey I like talking to dogs too! <BR/><BR/>You're probably aware of the Dolphin Oracle artwork at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis? You can ask questions (typed in on a wireless keyboard) of a computer generated dolphin (projected on a screen) which, after a pause and some dolphin squeaks, replies (captioned below) in an esoteric zen koan way. It usually takes some aspect of your question and twists it around in a bizarre word figure. It's pretty funny, very popular and the dolphin is very cute, which helps I think. <BR/><BR/>I keep wondering if the creepiness of computer-generated human figures is just a stage we'll work through collectively until we're more used to it. Certainly part of the problem is that they can get virtually everything else looking spot-on real right down to the hair follicles on a polar bear, a plodding dinosaur or the explosion of CG cars and airplanes. But we're acutely sensitive to the details of humankind whether it's the gestures of the body, the facial ticks that reveal fleeting emotions, the pitch and inflection of the voice, the idiosyncrasies and blushings of skin, literally millions of minute and telling details, many of which we aren't even conscious of as we see them in others and perform them ourselves, but which still play on our thoughts and emotions, that relay complex, naturalistic information exchanges between human beings. Actors, dancers, comedians, etc., are specialists at orchestrating and deploying these gestures and, for the most part, they do it intuitively. Watching CG movie humans in, say, "Beowulf," I think we're still struck by how crude the approximations are. It's analogous to bad acting. But it does get better with each iteration. Beowulf was incrementally more convincing than Polar Express, though it still basically sucked.<BR/><BR/>The creepiness problem reminds me of an American guy I once met when I was visiting in Japan who was a scholar of classical Japanese literature. He (I was told by someone else who knew) could read, write and speak Japanese at a very high, scholarly level, better than an ordinary Japanese person and also could perform all of the classical rituals flawlessly, the tea ceremony, Shinto purification rituals, etc. He told me that, as he became more adept at the language and customs of Japan, he noticed Japanese people becoming less and less comfortable with him. Apparently, not only do the Japanese expect us to be clumsy navigators in their world, but they rather prefer it that way because it reinforces their sense of exceptionalism. The more you become like them, the more confusing and threatening it becomes. Americans, on the other hand, think they can be anything they want to be, including Japanese. That's one cultural trait peculiar to the U.S. So maybe the same impulse is in effect with these bots. For the time being, it seems really important to us that we perceive ourselves to be distinctly and uniquely human and we don't welcome any mimickrey, mockery or competition--yet. But I have a strong suspicion that this will change quickly and dramtically at some future tipping point, probably at the point when the quality becomes more plausible, more convincing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-23608831072401007622008-06-27T07:09:00.000-07:002008-06-27T07:09:00.000-07:00The uncanny valley is definitely territory to stay...The uncanny valley is definitely territory to stay away from, but I think semi intelligent agents are a good approach not just for soliciting input, but also for complex interactions. <BR><BR/>Agent based interfaces are something to look at to minimize learning curves to interact with complex systems, and avoiding HAL like creepiness is always key.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07615238802602492222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-87569377207580932102008-06-26T16:06:00.000-07:002008-06-26T16:06:00.000-07:00Thanks for your thoughtful comment! To me, the ch...Thanks for your thoughtful comment! To me, the chatbot is successful not in simulating human conversation (which it's pretty lousy at) but at creating a non-human creature with which to interact. It's more like talking to a dog than to a person--and there are some things people will comfortably say or explain to dogs that they might not to staff, visitors, or the most convincing chatbot in the world. Incidentally, game research has shown that chatbots/NPCs that are too human-like are creepy. There's a term--the zombie line--that defines that moment when a non-human character becomes too human-esque for comfort. It's why the movie version of the Polar Express looked like aliens, whereas we're ok with Snoopy.<BR/><BR/>On the conversational angle, you might be interested in <A HREF="http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2006/12/game-friday-interactive-conversation.html" REL="nofollow"> this post</A> from the early days of Museum 2.0 about Jellyvision, "the interactive conversation company."<BR/><BR/>Jellyvision created the game You Don't Know Jack, famous for conversational style, and in the 1.5 years since I first wrote about them, they appear to have changed their brand image from game design to internet conversation design. Perhaps a great company to talk with about the future of museum conversations?Nina Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11723930679606298550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37032121.post-87918422077780724412008-06-26T12:35:00.000-07:002008-06-26T12:35:00.000-07:00I think question choice in the immediate context o...I think question choice in the immediate context of the museum experience is critical. There are many examples of video talkbacks out there now: Brad Larson has developed an off the shelf design that can be plugged with content, another type was developed by Richard Rabinowitz's team for Slavery In New York, the Freedom Museum in Chicago also has something similar and we developed yet another version for the Minnesota 150 exhibit at the History Center. In each case the visitor leaves a video response to a teaser question and each affords a playback function so a visitor can review other visitor's videos. The differences in design of each of these prototypes is telling. Some will only offer pre-screened playback, others have special celebrity answers to pique interest. Some are so simple as to have a "record" button and a limited response time of 20 seconds with an automatic save function, posting immediately, others use a more complicated interface allowing curatorial review before saving or a more open-ended recording timeframe allowing visitors to stop when finished. Some have the record and playback as separate interactions in discrete locations, others have them as options in the same interface. <BR/><BR/>But how are the teaser questions handled? All are "canned," preformulated questions, though some afford a variety of different questions to choose from. In our example, the big aha was understanding that the proposition works better when our question anticipates what a visitor's expressed desire is most likely to be. An abstruse question elicits little response. No question at all prompts mostly comment-book style answers: "Great exhibit!" "You suck." and so forth. <BR/><BR/>But how might this style of interaction move to something more conversational? And is the desired conversation more natural when it is framed as a visitor to visitor interaction, or as a visitor to museum conversation? And are chatbots really sophisticated emough to provide the kind of interaction that is satisfying or do they yet fail the Turing test? things to consider, for sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com