It's always nice to read the details of people building real applications, even if it's not a homerun.
BTW: just blurring people's names using a gaussian blur operator is not enough, if your radius is too small. From the screenshots of chats, you can tell names like "Arvind Sankar", "Manu Saravanan", etc.
Also, although difficult, Gaussian blurs can be in certain cases reversed (even though this one is so obvious there was no point in blurring the names). I prefer a fat black box when censoring.
If you want a more robust parser I made scripts to export Messenger and Hangouts chat logs to dataframes for a previous project: https://github.com/MasterScrat/ChatShape
It will give you rows with : [timestamp, interlocutorName, messageSenderName, text]
Is it possible to make it spew out random personal information like addresses and phone numbers if you give it the right input? That's usually what happens when you train a RNN and it overfits.
Yeah you're right it is a possibility. Overfitting was definitely a problem in this project. I think just a larger dataset and maybe adding some regularizers would have helped.
Luckily I dont think I have too much compromising information in my dataset LOL
Ha! Just yesterday I had the narcisstic idea of gifting someone I've been chatting regularly with for years a chatbot that answers his messages like I would. This is just what I needed, thanks!
I don't see anything bad that he said. Also, I've met a decent amount of people who come across as very "bro" who are actually really nice considerate people so being kinda bro isn't inherently bad (unless you define "bro" as essentially just being an ahole, which doesn't seem to apply here)
So.. I went reading the article, expecting something really ridiculously bro. The article was well written, good references, but yes, uses a few silly conversation samples (for which there were no sexist, racist or homophobic references).
Is it possible that training a bot to speak like that (silly/casual) is more challenging than to emulate a very grammatically correct and stiff style? As such, maybe the choice of conversations was intentional?
My comment was directed towards the OP, who was harsh and didn't provide a proper argument. As I said, it was a nice article and I wanted to encourage others to read it, despite that (flagged) comment.
I see it more often used to mock a male mono-culture and the pitfalls that derive from it (ex: brogrammers). A bit like the term douchebag has become a synonym of 'jerk'.
BTW: just blurring people's names using a gaussian blur operator is not enough, if your radius is too small. From the screenshots of chats, you can tell names like "Arvind Sankar", "Manu Saravanan", etc.