Talk:Bot Colony

Images

If the images are uploaded to commons with a free license by the copyright holder we can use them here. If not then the lack of a good fair use rationale will probably see them all deleted except the infobox image. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS if the copyright holder wants someone else to upload them there. If the copyright holder uploads them then the very busy OTRS system won't be needed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Available again

I have no time to edit the article right now, so parking these here. Here's a review that states clearly that the game was made available again, with a new mission, in spring 2017; here's another review, also from April 2017. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Sensebased (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC) This would be a third review published in April 2017, [1] after the game's re-launch on 21 February 2017, which also mentions the Bot Colony novel.

Thanks, about to use that one. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RPS is good but I'd remove Gamespew. (Also gamecritics.com appears to be a hobbyist site.) Most vetted sources are discussed at WP:VG/RS and you can use the custom Google search to search the reliable sites at once. I'd also pull the primary sources and press releases unless they're absolutely vital to rounding out the article (self-published sources). Feel free to ping if I can help! czar 16:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Rats, GameSpew is particularly clear about what happened and talks about Intruder. Thanks for advice. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I wimped out on removing those two. But that custom search showed me Gamasutra, with which I was able to knock out a primary source and reference the switch to Havoc. (Y'all do realize I have no idea what any of this means, right?) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Third law of robotics

Sensebased (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually this https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/3/161185-no-place-for-old-educational-flaws-in-new-online-media/abstract contains a mention of the fifth law of robotics, but I think it requires a subscription. Publication in the Communications of ACM would probably qualify as noteworthy. Here's an excerpt from http://botcolony.com/blog/bot-colony-turing.php

MARCH, 2013

Bot Colony and the Turing Test

“Just ask Jimmy [North Side's robot] if Ayame [North Side's nominal adult human] can put her little finger all the way up her nose.” This line concludes Robert French’s reaction to my letter (which was in reaction to his article Moving Beyond the Turing Test in Dec. 2012). My letter and his reaction to it were published in the respected Communications of ACM, March 2013

Don’t Give up On the Turing Test – Communications of the ACM Vol.56 No.03

His point is that intelligent robots, capable of meaningful interaction with humans, do not have to be Turing-Test indistinguishable from humans. It depends what their job is. If their job is to act as a companion to an elderly person, or entertain and educate at the same time (a robotic toy), they will be a lot more effective in their jobs if they act more like an intelligent being, rather than a machine. The Bot Colony world and game, with its fifth law of robotics (“Do as people do.”) would not exist if one succumbed to Robert French’s negativism. To quote his suggestion (about machines answering out-of-bounds questions): “Don’t try; accept that machines will not be able to answer them and move on.” One wonders if he’s ever heard about entertainment. French’s question CAN be answered if the 3D environment is accessible to reasoning, and this is how our technology works. It is a matter of colliding the nostril model with the little finger model. The question, by the way, is ambiguous, since ‘all the way’ can apply to the nostril or the little finger.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bot Colony. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715015100/http://lang.cs.tut.ac.jp/japtal2012/special_sessions/GAMNLP-12/papers/gamnlp12_submission_3.pdf to http://lang.cs.tut.ac.jp/japtal2012/special_sessions/GAMNLP-12/papers/gamnlp12_submission_3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)