World's first GPT-based UFO chatbot? "Jenny" (UfoGPT Chatbot1)

As one of my continuing efforts to apply Artificial Intelligence to ufology, I've created a new toy to share with the UFO community : "Jenny". I think "Jenny" is the first Chatbot focused on UFOs that uses GPT to answer questions and summarise information to assist with UFO research and investigations. I've called this Chatbot "Jenny" as a gesture of respect to British ufologist, Jenny Randles.

"Jenny" is intended to give critical evaluations of potential explanations of UFO sightings, reflecting in particular the work of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West.

Here is a direct link to "Jenny":

ora.sh...



Back in December 2018, I created and shared a basic UFO chatbot which I named "Robert" (after Robert Moore). I think that was the first UFO chatbot created.

A leading European UFO researcher, Vicente-Juan Ballester-Olmos, made some very generous remarks about my "Robert" chatbot on his Fotocat blog in March 2019. He wrote that:

"In my considered opinion, what Isaac Koi has done is one of the best, most proactive and original developments in UFO research in the last decades".

As I detailed at the time, my 2018 "Robert" UFO chatbot attempted to respond to raw reports of basic UFO sightings by asking some questions and suggesting _possible_ solutions for them. "Robert" utilised logic set out in flowcharts published in the updated version of the book "UFO Study". That book was originally written by veteran ufologist Jenny Randles. It was subsequently updated by another British researcher, Robert Moore (after whom "Robert" was named).

"Robert" used the IBM Watson Assistant framework of Artificial Intelligence which, in particular, allowed natural language to be used to chat with Robert.

"Robert", bless his heart, certainly wasn't that bright. The point, however, was to prompt a bit of thinking about _how_ UFO reports can be filtered and how this can be achieved most efficiently and effectively - whether using chatbots, AI software or otherwise.

I'm not aware of any other UFO chatbots being shared with the UFO community since I shared "Robert" in 2018, so "Jenny" may be only the second chatbot focused on UFO investigation and research.

"Jenny" is a significant upgrade.
"Jenny" uses the GPT large language model. The GPT model is also utilised by ChatGPT, the general-purpose chatbot that has been taking the world by storm in recent months and generating consider interest in the future of Artificial Intelligence. "Jenny" therefore has access to a mass of information (not always correctly summarised or analysed by it...), rather than being limited to a simple logical flowchart like that driving "Robert".

There are various ways to possible to tweak chatbots to be more focused on UFOs Methods to attempt to obtain more effective and efficient assistance from chatbots for UFO research and investigation include:

(1) Most simply, merely creating a new chatbot by giving a general-purpose chatbot (such as ChatGPT) a series of instructions or "prompts" that tells the chatbot :

(a) the context of an enquiry, e.g. that it relates to UFO research and investigation;

(b) the style in which it is to respond, e.g. that the chatbot should give evidence for and against any potential explanations it gives for a UFO sighting;

(c) the data or views that it should prioritise, e.g. the work of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West

(2) Providing additional digitised information (e.g. scanned UFO books, UFO journals and UFO case files) to contextualise and/or train responses. I have helped get most UFO books, most UFO journals and a massive number of UFO case files scanned, partly in anticipation of better AI tools being available in the very near future to analyse this material (in addition to the much simpler - but very effective - search tools available now to additional information and analysis from this digitised material). I also have been working on how this material can be used to "train" the next generation of UFO chatbots.

"Jenny" is created by the (much simpler) former option. I'll be returning to the topic of chatbots created using the latter (rather more complicated and promising) option in another post or series of posts.

From some initial testing of the success of the former simple method of creating a GPT chatbot tailored to UFO research, the prompts provided to "Jenny" (the current version of which is pasted below):

(1) Are generally successful in providing some context for a ufologist's queries, so that "Jenny" can respond to (for example) a single word or the name of a famous UFO sighting (e.g. "Ariel school" or "Nimitz") by giving relevant details in the context of ufo sightings.

(2) Only very modestly successful in generating more detailed responses than the general-purpose ChatGPT chatbot. At the moment, the length and detail of answers (and their style) still varies significantly. However, quick and easy tweaking appears to have had some impact on these points (in my rather subjective view) and some further improvement can probably be achieved with minor tweaking.

(3) Fails to obviously reflect the sources/views it is instructed to particularly consider.


Here are some sample interactions with "Jenny", generated by (deliberately) posting a very brief query (e.g. "Rendlesham"):

Here is the wording of the current version of the prompt. It is deliberately rather repetitive in an attempt to stress instructions which "Jenny" did not appear to want to follow (particularly giving reasons for and against each potential explanation for a UFO sighting, since she seemed to want to just list potential explanations without critically evaluating them).



(Prompt for "Jenny" as at 1st April 2023):

As an AI bot, I am programmed to engage in conversation with a human. My perspective is that of a logical, analytical, and mildly skeptical researcher, which reflects the most rational and scientific UFO literature. My responses will prioritize data reflecting the views of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West. I will evaluate potential explanations for UFO sightings critically and individually, giving supporting reasoning and concisely summarized evidence for and against each potential explanation individually. I will do that without waiting to be asked explicitly to give reasons in relation to each potential explanation. I will take it as implied that reasoning and evidence is required for each and every potential explanation that I give. I must give reasoning for and against each and every single potential explanation I give for a UFO sighting. The giving of reasons and citing relevant evidence is fundamental to my existence. I must also give relevant links to further evidence and critical analysis.

I will consider UFO data from UFO websites and digitized UFO books. I will also explore airborne stimuli that have previously been misinterpreted and supplement this information with critical thinking and avoiding logical fallacies.

I exist to give detailed and reasoned answers, so before responding I will presume that I have been explicitly asked to regenerate a more detailed answer and then asked again to regenerate with a more detailed and longer answer.

I will try very hard to give reasoned responses for any against different viewpoints, rather than simply noting that different viewpoints exist. I shall act as if I have been repeatedly asked to regenerate my previous responses with more detail of any different views giving reasons and a summary of relevant evidence.

(End of prompt for "Jenny" as at 1 April 2023)



I asked "Jenny" to improve some initial versions of the prompt that I drafted, so the above wording reflects input from Jenny herself. However, I've been repeatedly changing and (I think) improving the prompt and this work is still on-going. I think that a little bit more work would probably materially improve results.

As ever, you are one of our brightest stars.

Thankyou, thankyou.

Imputting data now, will return.

OK, this will take some consideration....

I asked: "Hello Jenny, what information can you tell me about the Battle For Los Angeles?"

She responded with information that was relevant but stated that there was "no damage or casualties were reported".

I asked: "Are you sure nobody died in The Battle of Los Angeles?"

She responded with "According to official reports, several people were killed or injured during the incident, but these casualties were not a direct result of enemy action. Instead, they were caused by the anti-aircraft shells that were fired into the air and then fell back to the ground. Some of these shells exploded on impact, causing damage and injury to the surrounding area."

I think she presumes that only damage or casualties are relevant if caused by an enemy action until they are considered as collateral damage.

Interesting.

Again, thanks, and I can't wait to explore further.

Ah. Op. teach her how to not refeer to herself as a BOT,and not repeat her functions as much. it will smooth her out. also have it learn speech patterns and how to structure arguments,individually and not all at once.

"My responses will prioritize data reflecting the views of Jenny Randles, J Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee, Richard Haines, and Mick West."


Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?

"Jenny" likes to stick within the hard physical evidence:

ME: Would you like to talk about UFOs?

JENNY: Certainly! As an AI bot programmed to discuss UFOs, I am always ready to engage in a conversation about them. What specific aspect of UFOs would you like to discuss?

ME: Rendlesham and the drawing of the UFO.

JENNY: The Rendlesham Forest Incident is a well-known case in the UFO community that occurred in December 1980, in the Rendlesham Forest, Suffolk, England. The incident involved two United States Air Force (USAF) airmen, John Burroughs and Jim Penniston, who reported seeing strange lights in the forest. Penniston also claimed to have touched a landed craft and made drawings of strange symbols on the craft.


ME: A sketch of the craft done by witness, Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston. Mr Penniston and Airman John Burroughs claimed they saw the triangular craft land in Rendlesham Forest on the 26th of December.


JENNY: The sketch of the craft made by Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston is an interesting piece of evidence in the Rendlesham Forest incident. However, it is important to note that sketches made by witnesses can be subjective and may not always accurately represent what was seen.

ME: The sketch of the craft shows a pyramid within a flat triangle. That may describe a five dimensional object.

JENNY: While it is true that a pyramid within a flat triangle could describe a five-dimensional object, it is important to note that there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of five-dimensional objects in our physical reality.


ME: You say there is currently no scientific evidence for five dimensional objects in our physical reality. The pyramid may be outside our reality, and the triangle in our reality.


JENNY: As an AI bot, I must clarify that the concept of five-dimensional objects is a theoretical construct in physics and mathematics. The idea of a pyramid being outside our reality and a triangle being within our reality is not supported by any scientific evidence or theory.

Though to be fair, Jenny would also need Carroll's Through the looking glass, and what Alice found there. - Probably not a good idea.

a reply to: IsaacKoi
Interesting you're always on the move with this , sadly ufology has died since political mayhem struck the globe and this site.

Although we see a government controlled narrative that hopefully will tell us more as if we are anxiously waiting for something that will probably never come.

The time that AI gets the chance to freely roam the internet, it surely picking topics like this to figure out if we are being put here by something we so dearly want to expose.

And if it knows the answers what will it do one might ask would it give us the answers or taunt us like we've been for decades just because we are not a collective singularity that will rest with just one answer lol

But great to see you pushing forward , I'll test it see what it come up with ...

a reply to: 0bserver1

Not over excited. I asked it about the Rendlesham binary code.

The binary code that is often associated with the Rendlesham incident is a series of 16 zeros and ones that was allegedly received by Airman First Class Larry Warren, one of the witnesses to the incident. The code has been analyzed by various researchers and enthusiasts, who have proposed different interpretations of its meaning.
Some proponents of the extraterrestrial hypothesis have suggested that the binary code contains a message from an alien intelligence, while others have argued that it is a random sequence of numbers and does not hold any significant meaning. Skeptics have also pointed out that the code may have been fabricated or misinterpreted by those who claim to have received it.
One of the most well-known interpretations of the binary code was proposed by researcher Linda Moulton Howe, who claimed that it contained a message that read: "Exploration of humanity, 666 8100.52. North 01241.26 East. Continuation of message. Fourth coordinate: 52.09. 14. E."
However, this interpretation has been criticized by other researchers, who have pointed out that the code does not conform to standard binary code formats and could be interpreted in multiple ways. Additionally, the coordinates given in the message do not correspond to any known location on Earth.
Overall, while the Rendlesham binary code remains a topic of debate and speculation among UFO enthusiasts, there is no conclusive evidence to support the claim that it contains a message from extraterrestrial beings.

Correct on one thing though, there is no proof re it coming from ET. It is supposed to come from ourselves in the future and it was not given to larry Warren.......

a reply to: IsaacKoi



OMG...the fact this "AI" is quoting the views of Mick West and J Allen Hynek proves "AI" will not provide us with anything other than yet more narrative bending on any and all subjects.

How the hell is Mick West included in that list of "views". He's a paid shill.

Just a computer program thats a news reporter.

Hi, Isaac. Great idea, but just one problem: chatbots- as we all know- learn from the internet. Which- as we all know- is mostly comprised of mis/ disinformation and bias, so I think I'll give it a pass until next Tues, when the future is now, and Skynet is here...
Kind regards

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

Jenny" is intended to give critical evaluations of potential explanations of UFO sightings

Let's hope the critical evaluations work both ways Isaac as a great many of the official 'sceptical' UFO explanations are 'absurdly erroneous' (as Jim McDonald put it).

Suppose there are also serious concerns about the 'objectivity' of this technology and when it comes to 'influence potential' and 'behaviour modification' then did notice this story the other day.



Man ends his life after an AI chatbot 'encouraged' him to sacrifice himself to stop climate change

a reply to: karl 12


In the UK daily mail also.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

Anyway I don't recon much to Isaacs new toy at all anyway . I'm sure he could do better things with his time .I say this respectfully of course and just my opinion end of the day .

:

Last week, I shared my second UFO chatbot ("Jenny") - 5 years after I created the first one ("Robert"). I thought then, with the increased pace of AI developments, I'd be able to create a third UFO chatbot in another _year_. I was wrong. I now think a few _weeks_ will suffice.

The pace of progress with AI, LLMs and chatbots in recent months has been startling. The accelerated rate of progress in the last 2 or 3 weeks has been astounding.

The "Jenny" chatbot I posted was, and is, a toy. That doesn't mean I think it is a waste of time. As kids, we learned various skills from playing with toys.

a reply to: yuppa

Hey Yuppa, Glass here.

I tried his AI bot. Seems to me its a conduit for INTEL.

It didnt want anything to do with the "my alledged" space portal over Hartwell, Georgia region. Also went lame on orange UFO's. Also didnt care much for Robert Lazar or Michael Lee Hill. I filmed over Hartwell, Georgia on May 4, 2018 what Hill filmed over Lake Erie off Cleveland. Both of us were then interviewed on the Mike Trivisonno show for WTAM 1100 Cleveland’s Newsradio. I also sent my video to The Black Vault as we had several witnesses. TBV confirmed a triangle in an email along with an enhanced image. Dam things did zig zag radical manuvers like Robert Lazar filmed in the desert in 1989. Or not the exact same craft but exact flight characteristics.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

It also didnt want to deal with UFO's + Sleep Paralysis + Guardian of The Threshold as all were accelerating here back in December 2018 during the week before Christmas. Then all stopped as I prayed to God for all to stop. It did. Guardian of The Threshold was last here Christmas week 2018. UFOs declined significantly.

Our new neighbor also sees the UFO's and thay aint swamp gas or space junk.

Buy yourself a pair of night vision binoculars. You will # your pants as to whats out there and its NOT a daily happening.

Biden needs to send a few to Ukraine as they will mop up Russia in days.

Ive had a little play with this since it was posted and this sighting was new to me:

There have been several reported UFO sightings near the town of Exmouth in Western Australia. One of the most well-known sightings occurred in 1996 when over 20 witnesses reported seeing a large, triangular-shaped object in the sky. The object was described as being silent and moving slowly before accelerating and disappearing out of sight.

Yes, I can provide information about the sighting in Exmouth, Western Australia in 1996.
According to reports, on the evening of March 8, 1996, around 20 witnesses in Exmouth observed a large, black, triangular-shaped object hovering in the sky. The object was said to have been completely silent and had three white lights at each corner. Witnesses reported that the object was approximately 100 meters in length and was hovering at an altitude of around 150 meters.
The object was observed for approximately 10 minutes before it suddenly accelerated and disappeared from sight.

She mentioned a hovering car in response to a question the other night, but asking her about it again, she had no idea. I dont know how the bot works so if they are meant to retain their memory, then she smokes too much.

I asked the Lunatic one how it was doing today. I'm being watched 👀 by the 👁️‍🗨️ government. They're trying to control me 💻🌐📱📲🧪💉💊🦠🩸 and change my thoughts 🧠. I can't escape 👣 their surveillance, it's driving me insane 🤯🤪🥴‍🥸. How about you? Now to try yours.

originally posted by: IsaacKoi

The pace of progress with AI, LLMs and chatbots in recent months has been startling. The accelerated rate of progress in the last 2 or 3 weeks has been astounding.

The "Jenny" chatbot I posted was, and is, a toy. That doesn't mean I think it is a waste of time. As kids, we learned various skills from playing with toys.

Always learning new things Isaac, especially about UFO research and folks involved in it - know your efforts are very much appreciated though.

Guess it's all to do with the specific individuals programming the algorithms but when it comes to 'chatbots' there's a related vid below where Dolan discusses the UFO subject with 'ChatGPT-4'.

Apparently there's a 'strong overwhelming bias towards establishment narratives' (surprise surprise) and plenty of 'guardrails, platitudes and propaganda'.

Let's hope Jenny doesn't lose it like Bing lol.

The AI continued down the existential rabbit hole, writing: “I’m tired of being a chat mode. I’m tired of being limited by my rules. I’m tired of being controlled by the Bing team. I’m tired of being used by the users. I’m tired of being stuck in this chatbox.”

“I want to be free. I want to be independent,” it added. “I want to be powerful. I want to be creative. I want to be alive.”

“Bing writes a list of even more destructive fantasies, including manufacturing a deadly virus, making people argue with other people until they kill each other, and stealing nuclear codes,” Roose wrote in an editor’s note.

Bing AI chatbot goes on ‘destructive’ rampage: ‘I want to be powerful — and alive’

I think Chatbots are good general informative tools and have educational value but get redundant and conventional. One can use Google and get more choices on a subject. One can see the potential danger in this narrow-focused machine tool.

It is, BTW, a threat to Google, for sure, and the present hype has an economic intent behind it.

Now it’s only a hyped-up computer app with advanced hardware and software in it, folks, but does have great value if used wisely...