A Neural Conversational Model · HackerPapers discussions

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by ma2rten

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:30:18 GMT

My personal "oh shit" moment was in 2015, when this paper came out: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05869 It showed me that a model trained only on movie subtitles data exhibited some (very primitive) reasoning. I have been working on Deep Learning and later LLMs ever since.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by benob

Fri, 02 Feb 2024 12:25:01 GMT

Google had it in 2015 [1] [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05869

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by gambler

Tue, 28 Jan 2020 21:05:35 GMT

In 2015 Google claimed to have created a chat bot that can do common-sense reasoning and do tech support just by reading a sufficiently large dataset: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by p1esk

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:52:51 GMT

I'm not sure if you're aware, but this has already been done, pretty much literally: https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05869

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by mallamanis

Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:15:55 GMT

Using machine learning like this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869.pdf would be fun for this and avoid(?) canned responses...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by dave_sullivan

Thu, 02 Jun 2016 14:06:41 GMT

> If this is the state of the art in machine translation, how on Earth can you expect a machine that can converse on human level in three years? Here are 2 good papers--one from last year, one very recent--that might change your mind. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1605.06065v1.pdf Over the past 10 years (deep learning got going in ~2006, really), the state of the art has improved at an exponential rate, and that's not slowing down. There are plenty of reasons to be bullish. Or at least, now seems like a bad time to leave the field.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by lossolo

Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:21:08 GMT

Exactly, because it has a shot. Writing that it doesn't have a chance is just effect of lack of knowledge in ML field. You can see some work that was already done in this research paper, before AlphaGo success. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by dave_sullivan

Sun, 27 Mar 2016 18:15:52 GMT

Read this paper from July of last year and it'll make more sense as to why this research is interesting: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869.pdf. Seeding a dataset with human labels, then generating new, better data is pretty cool. Similar to deep mind watching go games, then learning to play better than said games. Add to which, humans can't tell the difference between the human generated data and algo generated data. We're about 3 months from where you can bootstrap a system like microsofts with freely available code and data. From there, if "memory modules" start working better so models can…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by espadrine

Thu, 28 Jan 2016 11:58:34 GMT

It seems like an old way to solve the problem. I would be quite surprised if it gave good results compared to recent advances such as the LSTM-based paper “A Neural Conversational Model” [0]. In fact, I doubt it is even competitive compared to Cleverbot. It does try to compare itself with existing alternatives, but it does not characterize the pros and cons of each alternative and does not compare results. (I am not an expert, but did take classes on the subject of pattern recognition and machine learning.) [0]: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by espadrine

Tue, 10 Nov 2015 14:30:40 GMT

Simulating bad typing is only necessary to fake a human. Here, having bad typing when faking an AI is stranger. That said, AIs trained through the chat transcripts of a large number of conversations may produce mistakes. I remember reading a paper that gave good results that way, with the side-effect that it produces typing mistakes as a result. I cannot find that paper again, unfortunately. Edit: found it! http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v1.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by taimur38

Thu, 06 Aug 2015 17:58:28 GMT

summary: http://www.businessinsider.com/google-tests-new-artificial-i... paper (worth reading): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v2.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — HN submission

Thu, 23 Jul 2015 13:30:43 GMT

Getting closer to 'Ex Machina' – A Neural Conversational Model by Google[pdf]

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — mentioned by cocoflunchy

Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:54:02 GMT

The actual paper is actually way more interesting, with lots of examples of conversations: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05869v2.pdf

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — HN submission

Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:34:22 GMT

A Neural Conversational Model [pdf]

6 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

A Neural Conversational Model — HN submission

Mon, 22 Jun 2015 20:09:42 GMT

A Neural Conversational Model [pdf]

105 points; 39 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.