With recent leaps in large language model technology, conversational AI offer increasingly sophisticated interactions. But is it fair to say that they can offer authentic relationships, perhaps even assuage the loneliness epidemic? In answering this question, this essay traces the history of AI authenticity, historically shaped by cultural imaginations of intelligent machines and human communication. The illusion of human-like interaction with AI has existed since at least the 1960s, when the term “Eliza effect’ was named after the first chatbot Eliza. Termed a “crisis of authenticity” by sociologist Sherry Turkle, the Eliza effect has stood for fears that AI interactions can undermine real human connections and leave users vulnerable to manipulation. More recently, however, researchers have begun investigating less anthropomorphic definitions of authenticity. The expectation - and perhaps fantasy - of authenticity stems, in turn, from a much longer history of technologically mediated communications, dating back to the invention of the telegraph in the nineteenth century. Read through this history, the essay concludes that AI relationships might not mimic human interactions but must instead acknowledge the artifice of AI, offering a new form of companionship in our mediated, often lonely, times.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) adds a simple but powerful feature to chatbots, the ability to upload files just-in-time. Chatbots are trained on large quantities of public data. The ability to upload files just-in-time makes it possible to reduce hallucinations by filling in gaps in the knowledge base that go beyond the public training data such as private data and recent events. For example, in a customer service scenario, with RAG, we can upload your private bill and then the bot can discuss questions about your bill as opposed to generic FAQ questions about bills in general. This tutorial will show how to upload files and generate responses to prompts; see https://github.com/kwchurch/RAG for multiple solutions based on tools from OpenAI, LangChain, HuggingFace transformers and VecML.

Speaking with conversational AIs, technologies whose interfaces enable human-like interaction based on natural language, has become a common phenomenon. During these interactions, people form their beliefs due to the say-so of conversational AIs. In this paper, I consider, and then reject, the concepts of testimony-based beliefs and instrument-based beliefs as suitable for analysis of beliefs acquired from these technologies. I argue that the concept of instrument-based beliefs acknowledges the non-human agency of the source of the belief. However, the analysis focuses on perceiving signs and indicators rather than content expressed in natural language. At the same time, the concept of testimony-based beliefs does refer to natural language propositions, but there is an underlying assumption that the agency of the testifier is human. To fill the lacuna of analyzing belief acquisition from conversational AIs, I suggest a third concept: technology-based beliefs. It acknowledges the non-human agency-status of the originator of the belief. Concurrently, the focus of analysis is on the propositional content that forms the belief. Filling the lacuna enables analysis that considers epistemic, ethical, and social issues of conversational AIs without excluding propositional content or compromising accepted assumptions about the agency of technologies.

This paper investigates the linguistic worth of current ‘chatbot’ programs – software programs which attempt to hold a conversation, or interact, in English – as a precursor to their potential as an ESL (English as a second language) learning resource. After some initial background to the development of chatbots, and a discussion of the Loebner Prize Contest for the most ‘human’ chatbot (the ‘Turing Test’), the paper describes an in-depth study evaluating the linguistic accuracy of a number of chatbots available online. Since the ultimate purpose of the current study concerns chatbots' potential with ESL learners, the analysis of language embraces not only an examination of features of language from a native-speaker's perspective (the focus of the Turing Test), but also aspects of language from a second-language-user's perspective. Analyses indicate that while the winner of the 2005 Loebner Prize is the most able chatbot linguistically, it may not necessarily be the chatbot most suited to ESL learners. The paper concludes that while substantial progress has been made in terms of chatbots' language-handling, a robust ESL ‘conversation practice machine’ (Atwell, 1999) is still some way off being a reality.