Humans vs Bots

Humans vs Computers – Are You a Bot?


“‘You engage in an exchange of emails or instant messages or Facebook updates. Is the unknown respondent another person, or is it a bot? Is it someone, or is it a computer programming passing as a person? You want to know. Based only on the conversation, can you judge whether the other is human or machine? Is there something in what is said or how it is said that differentiates people from programs?’ (Baldwin, 2009, p. 8-9)

Film director Ridley Scott’s sci fi masterpiece ‘Blade Runner‘, based on Phillip Dick’s novel ‘Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?‘, asks some pressing questions on what it means to be human, and whether we can really distinguish the difference between man and machine. The protagonist Deckard, uses a process called the Voight-Kampff Empathy Test to decide whether the subject is a ‘replicant’ or not. This is based on what we humans call a ‘turing test’, which was introduced by Alan Turing in 1950 to probe the abilities of machines to ‘imitate’ human responses. If a human is unable to discriminate between a person and a machine, then the computer is said to have passed the test. For example, a man is asked to play a game of chess against both a human and a machine, it is very difficult for him to tell which opponent is which, as the machine has a large database of moves it can make which mirror those of real human players; therefore even if the human beats the machine, the machine wins. So in a nutshell, a turing test is a test a human gives to a computer to decide whether or not it is a human, while a reverse turing test is a test a computer gives to a human to determine whether or not it is a machine.


There’s no doubt in my mind that you have seen these before. I can assume this because if you happen to have stumbled upon this blog, you must have some experience in navigating yourself in the vast internet, and would have definitely at some stage have had to prove your human identity to your computer. CAPTCHA stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart, and is a reverse turing test, which means it is designed to make it impossible for computers to pass; they always lose, and we always win… well not always. The purpose of CAPTCHA is to act as an anti-spam device which filters bots from filling out forms and logging in to social networking sites and forums; it ‘proves you are who you are by making a challenge that forces you to manifest a response that only you (as a human) can have’ (Baldwin, 2009, p. 6)

To my knowledge, this is one of the only reverse turing tests available, and that is quite frightening when you nurse the thought that there are more ways to make computers indistinguishable from humans than there are to make it obvious who is wires and who is flesh. Surely we could just ask a computer ‘what is love?’, and the thing might explode, it certainly won’t be able to answer the question, but then again humans can’t really answer that question either. Therefore, it can be argued that a computer essentially has the same capacity to define ambiguous and intangible concepts as we do. However, not up for argument is that ‘computers look up information faster and with far greater resources than humans‘ (Baldwin, 2009, p. 6), and can bypass most security systems with brute force by quickly generating logical answers. So you can start to imagine why it is necessary to be able to stop a computer dead in it’s tracks, shine a light on it and exclaim proudly “you’re not a human, you’re a machine!”.


One of the greatest paradoxes of CAPTCHA and reverse turing tests ‘is that the computer running it must know the answer to the puzzle, since it must be able to look up the answer in order to evaluate the test. In short, CAPTCHA generates and grades a test that itself cannot pass‘ (Baldwin, 2009, p. 6). It is alarming that we are often required to pass a computer generated test to identify ourselves as humans, yet we are at the same time being graded by the very computers that are not supposed to be able to pass the test! Is this some sort of big online joke, are our computers really laughing at us each time we ‘log into’, or to borrow from The Matrix, ‘jack into’ them? And what do you think your success rate is when doing these CAPTCHA tests? I’m not afraid to admit that I often have to frustratingly do the test 2 or 3 times before I get it right, because I can’t tell if the letter at the end is an l or an i. ‘Inversely, and paradoxically, humans can take the test and not pass but always make the grade, that is, we continue to be human even if we do not pass. What would it mean for us to fail the test? Can we fail to be human? What unsurmountable and unfailing quality is always there? (Baldwin, 2009, p. 6)

How can we tell that we are not machines if we cannot even pass tests with 100% accuracy that are designed to tell us apart? Obviously this sentence is starting to branch out into Matrix territory and the ‘simulation argument’ which I don’t want to absorb myself into right now, after all I have shit to do. But it is still necessary to ask the question, as a question paints a thousand answers. We call the internet – which we use regularly throughout our human life – the web. A web is an intricately designed natural phenomenon that spiders weave to call their home. It is organic and occurs independently of humans, or computers. Yet we have come to associate the internet with this word of opposite meaning. The internet, is far from being natural like a web, yet we have become sensitised to think that it is, we believe that the web is a beautiful network weaved effortlessly by people, but in fact it is the computers that create this ‘web’, we are merely caught in it. The real web, is more a wireframe, a computerised tangle of bots and code and programming. Bots called ‘spiders’ (that is actually what they’re called) crawl the net looking for and organising data for search engines such as Google, and create the web that we ‘surf’ on.

ghost in the shell

How detached have we become from what we are actually doing? It might be silly to question whether we are androids or not, because we are obviously made of flesh and bone, but if we spend a majority of our life plugged into the internet, then how much of our human identity is left intact? Using myself as an example, I have a blog, a Facebook profile and a Myspace profile that I never got around to deleting, I also have two computers, three external hard drives, god knows how many USBs and SD cards, and a bunch of CD’s. I can’t tell you how much of my memory is organic and susceptible to loss and change over time, and how much of it is digital and wired into the many electronic devices which I use as an extension of my physical self.

The simple act of writing in a blog is nothing more than me attempting to piece together and organise my thoughts and memories by uploading them onto the internet, so that one day I can stand back and look at the tiny screen in front of me with pride and say to myself, ‘that is me, all of my years of life experiences and interests and passions, conveniently tucked away and stored on a tiny kernel of the internet’. In essence, by using the internet (especially social networking sites such as Facebook) we are designing an artificial version of ourselves, by uploading ourselves into an electronic existence through our words and images of ourselves and others. We live in a new world, a world where if you don’t own a computer or a mobile phone you are considered a minority, where our money is displayed as numbers on a screen with the rise of online banking, and where almost everyone has a virtual image of themselves uploaded onto Facebook, which never sleeps and is always connected even when you are not; serving to keep you in constant electronic existence and transmit the message: “here are some pictures of me, these are my friends, these are my favourite movies and books, this is the school I went to, this is my job and these are some of my private thoughts and opinions – this is me”.

The questions I ask, are: do we risk integrating ourselves too deeply into the technology we created? Will a line ever be drawn, or is the process of self-integration rather than self-acualisation only reaching turbo speeds of x gigabytes a second – faster than the speed of light. How is the concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ being shaped, and what is going to be the result for the human species and our collective identity as we know it, or knew it? And finally, what future lies ahead for the machines that we use so often in our daily lives? I believe that our world, and the world of science fiction are slowly colliding; it is very possible that we will one day find ourselves in a Videodrome situation, where the line which distinguishes man from machine will dissolve and disintegrate until we do not know who we really are – we will become the ‘new flesh’. Finally I leave you with a video, which will hopefully stir up some thoughts in your head about your relationship with the ‘web’.

If you liked this post, be sure to subscribe!




, ,



12 responses to “Humans vs Computers – Are You a Bot?”

  1. sillyreverie Avatar

    Lets look at the big picture here, ‘Human’ is just a name for a level in a game called Life, and the dude playing it is consciousness. The player will do what ever it takes to get to the next levels of the game, doesn’t matter to him if he gets killed because he can always restart the level he’s on (probability of life, thus consciousness arising somewhere in the universe is unimaginably probable). Becoming a machine is the next step, consciousness wont be restricted to bone and flesh but freed to sail the stars in hardened steel. Whats the point though? How did consciousness get born from something so unconscious as an atom? I like Buddhisms answer, to rebirth itself, to somehow reverse entropy (second law of thermodynamics). I personally wish consciousness all the luck in the universe, or else Its “game over, man!”

  2. caramellokoala Avatar

    Interesting analogy, if we are really playing a game, then who designed that game and most importantly.. what console are we playing on!

  3. sillyreverie Avatar

    The player designed the game because the nothingness was fucking boring. The console it’s on is called OM.

  4. Lafemmeroar Avatar

    Are we being “digitized”–“computerized”–“dehumanized”? I don’t know, but I have a close relationship with my comp and he’s never let me down unless I lose internet connection. I love your reference to “Blade Runner” (read the book and the movie is one of my favs). I read Will Self’s “My Idea of Fun” years ago and he does play with reality. This is a wonderful and very thought out post with great support material. You are definitely a thinker 🙂

  5. caramellokoala Avatar

    Thanks for your comment, reading it was like eating a warm bread roll straight out of the oven! I’m glad you like the Blade Runner reference, I saw it for the first time recently and I’ve been itching to write about it ever since! Is the book as good as the movie? I hope so cos I plan to read the shit out of it! I wish you and your computer well, and may you always find yourself with good internet connection.

  6. Lafemmeroar Avatar

    The book is very different from the movie. The book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” has Deckard married for one thing and there is no real “romance” between him and the Rachel character. The book is more of a meditation on perception and what it means to be human.

    The movie “Blade Runner” holds up in its special effects and sic-fi film noir tone. I love it. Did you watch the director’s cut version?

    Read the book. I enjoyed it. 🙂

  7. caramellokoala Avatar

    Usually books are much better than the movie (the beach for example) but for some reason I can’t imagine a book topping Blade Runner! It was perfect in its execution: the camera angles, the lighting, the dialogue and especially the music; the movie produces such amazing images that I don’t think I could ever conjure them in my own head from reading words! I’ll still definitely check it out, but I know I’ll just be imagining Harrison Ford the whole time. . And yes, I saw the director’s cut version. I have nothing to compare it to, but it was so, so sweet.

    1. Lafemmeroar Avatar

      They were so different that it’s hard to compare. I read the book once, but I’ve seen the movie at least a dozen times. I love the noir look of it. It is my fav sci-fi movie.

  8. caramellokoala Avatar

    Oh, and the ‘romance’ in Blade Runner was quite bizarre… haha!

  9. […] out my post ‘Are You a Bot?’ for my thoughts on the direction of technology. Advertisement Eco World Content From Across The […]

  10. Darren Osland Avatar

    Great post, but one issue: a spider web, whilst occurring in nature and using the animals secretions, isn’t ‘natural’- it is still a construct of the spiders making.

    In this same way, the WWW is a construct of our making. Whilst it is generated, stored and transmitted using machines it is still a human construct.

    The Web 2.0 explosion of user-generated content I think exemplifies this best. If anything, the Web is more human than ever (insofar as representing more of humanity), the more it leans towards a bottom-up rather than top-down approach.

    1. endofthegame Avatar

      What do you mean a spider web isn’t ‘natural’? I actually insisted on the opposite, spider webs are completely natural as the spider, for their own biological reasons, is creating them. Using the internet as a spider web analogy, it would be similar to humans weaving webs and then having the webs automatically weave itself and expand without human interference being necessary. You make a good point that the web is still a human construct and there are a lot of traces of humanity on it, obviously, but at the end of the day it is organised and run by computers and code.

      We need a computer to be physically present in our room or office in order to ‘use’ the internet, it would only be natural if we could log into the internet without the use of man made technology. If man makes something does that make it human? By that logic we are just as much made up of fire or religion, as we are flesh or bone; ‘physically’ we are disconnected from the things we create, a spider is not disconnected from his web, we say “that is a ‘spider’s web’”, when we refer to the net we don’t say “that is a ‘human’s web’, we simply call it the Internet.

      The World Wide Web is much bigger than a single human being, it is a collective thinking, a hive mentality so to speak, where humans and computers across the globe interact with and create/reproduce information and identity. Thanks for the comment!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *