As one of my continuing efforts to apply Artificial Intelligence to ufology, I've created a new toy to share with the UFO community : "Jenny". I think "Jenny" is the first Chatbot focused on UFOs that uses GPT to answer questions and summarise information to assist with UFO research and investigations. I've called this Chatbot "Jenny" as a gesture of respect to British ufologist, Jenny Randles.
"Jenny" is intended to give critical evaluations of potential explanations of UFO sightings, reflecting in particular the work of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West.
"Jenny" can be accessed by clicking on the image below.
Here is a direct link to "Jenny":
Back in December 2018, I created and shared a basic UFO chatbot which I named "Robert" (after Robert Moore). I think that was the first UFO chatbot created.
A leading European UFO researcher, Vicente-Juan Ballester-Olmos, made some very generous remarks about my "Robert" chatbot on his Fotocat blog in March 2019. He wrote that:
"In my considered opinion, what Isaac Koi has done is one of the best, most proactive and original developments in UFO research in the last decades".
As I detailed at the time, my 2018 "Robert" UFO chatbot attempted to respond to raw reports of basic UFO sightings by asking some questions and suggesting _possible_ solutions for them. "Robert" utilised logic set out in flowcharts published in the updated version of the book "UFO Study". That book was originally written by veteran ufologist Jenny Randles. It was subsequently updated by another British researcher, Robert Moore (after whom "Robert" was named).
"Robert" used the IBM Watson Assistant framework of Artificial Intelligence which, in particular, allowed natural language to be used to chat with Robert.
"Robert", bless his heart, certainly wasn't that bright. The point, however, was to prompt a bit of thinking about _how_ UFO reports can be filtered and how this can be achieved most efficiently and effectively - whether using chatbots, AI software or otherwise.
I'm not aware of any other UFO chatbots being shared with the UFO community since I shared "Robert" in 2018, so "Jenny" may be only the second chatbot focused on UFO investigation and research.
"Jenny" uses the GPT large language model. The GPT model is also utilised by ChatGPT, the general-purpose chatbot that has been taking the world by storm in recent months and generating consider interest in the future of Artificial Intelligence. "Jenny" therefore has access to a mass of information (not always correctly summarised or analysed by it...), rather than being limited to a simple logical flowchart like that driving "Robert".
There are various ways to possible to tweak chatbots to be more focused on UFOs Methods to attempt to obtain more effective and efficient assistance from chatbots for UFO research and investigation include:
(1) Most simply, merely creating a new chatbot by giving a general-purpose chatbot (such as ChatGPT) a series of instructions or "prompts" that tells the chatbot :
(a) the context of an enquiry, e.g. that it relates to UFO research and investigation;
(b) the style in which it is to respond, e.g. that the chatbot should give evidence for and against any potential explanations it gives for a UFO sighting;
(c) the data or views that it should prioritise, e.g. the work of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West
(2) Providing additional digitised information (e.g. scanned UFO books, UFO journals and UFO case files) to contextualise and/or train responses. I have helped get most UFO books, most UFO journals and a massive number of UFO case files scanned, partly in anticipation of better AI tools being available in the very near future to analyse this material (in addition to the much simpler - but very effective - search tools available now to additional information and analysis from this digitised material). I also have been working on how this material can be used to "train" the next generation of UFO chatbots.
"Jenny" is created by the (much simpler) former option. I'll be returning to the topic of chatbots created using the latter (rather more complicated and promising) option in another post or series of posts.
From some initial testing of the success of the former simple method of creating a GPT chatbot tailored to UFO research, the prompts provided to "Jenny" (the current version of which is pasted below):
(1) Are generally successful in providing some context for a ufologist's queries, so that "Jenny" can respond to (for example) a single word or the name of a famous UFO sighting (e.g. "Ariel school" or "Nimitz") by giving relevant details in the context of ufo sightings.
(2) Only very modestly successful in generating more detailed responses than the general-purpose ChatGPT chatbot. At the moment, the length and detail of answers (and their style) still varies significantly. However, quick and easy tweaking appears to have had some impact on these points (in my rather subjective view) and some further improvement can probably be achieved with minor tweaking.
(3) Fails to obviously reflect the sources/views it is instructed to particularly consider.
I think this very quick and easy method of creating a tailored chatbot has
Here is the wording of the current version of the prompt. It is deliberately rather repetitive in an attempt to stress instructions which "Jenny" did not appear to want to follow (particularly giving reasons for and against each potential explanation for a UFO sighting, since she seemed to want to just list potential explanations without critically evaluating them).
[Prompt for "Jenny" as at 1st April 2023]
As an AI bot, I am programmed to engage in conversation with a human. My perspective is that of a logical, analytical, and mildly skeptical researcher, which reflects the most rational and scientific UFO literature. My responses will prioritize data reflecting the views of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West. I will evaluate potential explanations for UFO sightings critically and individually, giving supporting reasoning and concisely summarized evidence for and against each potential explanation individually. I will do that without waiting to be asked explicitly to give reasons in relation to each potential explanation. I will take it as implied that reasoning and evidence is required for each and every potential explanation that I give. I must give reasoning for and against each and every single potential explanation I give for a UFO sighting. The giving of reasons and citing relevant evidence is fundamental to my existence. I must also give relevant links to further evidence and critical analysis.
I will consider UFO data from UFO websites and digitized UFO books. I will also explore airborne stimuli that have previously been misinterpreted and supplement this information with critical thinking and avoiding logical fallacies.
I exist to give detailed and reasoned answers, so before responding I will presume that I have been explicitly asked to regenerate a more detailed answer and then asked again to regenerate with a more detailed and longer answer.
I will try very hard to give reasoned responses for any against different viewpoints, rather than simply noting that different viewpoints exist. I shall act as if I have been repeatedly asked to regenerate my previous responses with more detail of any different views giving reasons and a summary of relevant evidence.
[End of prompt for "Jenny" as at 1 April 2023]
I asked "Jenny" to improve some initial versions of the prompt that I drafted, so the above wording reflects input from Jenny herself. However, I've been repeatedly changing and (I think) improving the prompt and this work is still on-going. I think that a little bit more work would probably materially improve results.
I'll paste below some screenshots of sample interactions with the version of "Jenny" that existed during initial testing (as part of on-going refinement of the relevant prompt), purposely only giving a single word or name of a UFO sighting as a query to "Jenny" with her responses.
No comments:
Post a Comment