Breaking a chatbot
-
A friend of mine shared this image. Could someone with a bit more JS experience than me explain if it makes any sense at all?
Either way, it's kind of hilarious... :D
-
@masonwheeler Way to go, breaking the Turing Illusion. ;)
-
@r10pez10 shared this in IRC not too long ago as well. I assume it's going around the intertubs?
I don't think it's a javascript thing, it would have to be some custom format that's processed by a script that selects a random item from each {choice|choize}. And for some reason, parsing the '{' and '}' (or something else?) in its target's post broke it.
This is assuming that the image isn't simply fake.That's the easiest explanation.
-
@CreatedToDislikeThis I'm more curious as to why the bot author decided to put all those synonyms in. Dodging a very naive spam filter?
-
@Maciejasjmj said in Breaking a chatbot:
Dodging a very naive spam filter?
Cheap way to mix things up. Variation, madlibs-style.
-
I'm teetering between "broke it" and "lol it knows we're a bot, let's fuck with its head".
-
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
If the stuff I've posted hasn't already, then no amount of JS probably would...
-
@anotherusername said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
If the stuff I've posted hasn't already, then no amount of JS probably would...
Yeah, my interpretation language is so much more screwy you probably wouldn't notice.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@anotherusername said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
If the stuff I've posted hasn't already, then no amount of JS probably would...
Yeah, my interpretation language is so much more screwy you probably wouldn't notice.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the following statement.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the above statement.
-
@sloosecannon said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@anotherusername said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
If the stuff I've posted hasn't already, then no amount of JS probably would...
Yeah, my interpretation language is so much more screwy you probably wouldn't notice.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the following statement.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the above statement.
Depends on the mode. But I believe the answer is, There is no question.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
-
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I remember on Community Server where you could break the entire forum just by typing </form> anywhere in your post.
Or for that matter, <li> or </li>.
-
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I do NOT look like that!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I do NOT look like that!
-
@ben_lubar said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I do NOT look like that!
I couldn't help but continuously wonder... what is that? "Who heart-ed?" What does that even mean?!?!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@ben_lubar said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I do NOT look like that!
I couldn't help but continuously wonder... what is that? "Who heart-ed?" What does that even mean?!?!
[French soldier from Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
I in your general direction!
-
@ben_lubar said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@ben_lubar said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@error said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@masonwheeler it doesn't necessarily appear to be JS. A simple replacement engine is at hand.
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
'"};]]>--</div>
I do NOT look like that!
I couldn't help but continuously wonder... what is that? "Who heart-ed?" What does that even mean?!?!
[French soldier from Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
I in your general direction!
With a British take on a French accent it would sound more like
I in your general direction!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@sloosecannon said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
@anotherusername said in Breaking a chatbot:
@Tsaukpaetra said in Breaking a chatbot:
For the record, you can't break me that easily!
If the stuff I've posted hasn't already, then no amount of JS probably would...
Yeah, my interpretation language is so much more screwy you probably wouldn't notice.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the following statement.
The real question is if you can successfully interpret the above statement.
Depends on the mode. But I believe the answer is, There is no question.
The mode of the set {statement 1, statement 2} is the set {statement 1, statement 2}.
-