Slashdot Mirror
Israeli AI System "Hal" And The Turing Test
Conspiracy_Of_Doves writes: "Hal, the AI creation of Dr. Anat Treister-Goren of Israel, has fooled child language language experts into believing that it is a 18-month old child. Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years. CNN.com article is here. Yes, it's named after what you think it's named after, and yes, the article mentions why naming it Hal might not be such a hot idea."
It's just like chatting with an 18 month old child! Doesn't know how to type, read, or write at all!
Truely an incredible step in toddler AI!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
I know people I work with who still haven't achieved adult-level language skills...
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Reminds me of a political party in Canada (NPC)that tried to implement a new method of communication called Newspeak. Now that was ironic. (and very funny)
Regardless, the fact that it learns like that is incredible. I just wonder if it won't hit a block at any point that isn't forseen.
"Hi, how are you today?"
"Poop!"
"Poop? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say."
"Pee-pee!"
"Indeed."
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
The next step in Thought Crime. Make them think they are talking to a real child and then arrest them.
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01) [foldoc]:
Alan Turing
Alan M. Turing, 22/3? June 1912 - 7 June 1954.
Eniac was around during WWII, so yes, computers existed in Turing's lifetime.
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
Dave...I have a load in my diaper...Dave...
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
When Hal was "born," he was hardwired with nothing more than the letters of the alphabet and a preference for rewards -- a positive outcome -- over punishments -- a negative one.
[...] Treister-Goren corrects Hal's mistakes in her typewritten conversations with him, an action Hal is programmed to recognise as a punishment and avoids repeating.
How long until Hal figures out that sending high voltage through the typewriter stops the punishment?
Hammer of Truth
Treister-Goren corrects Hal's mistakes in her typewritten conversations with him, an action Hal is programmed to recognise
I just thought this was cute, being recognise, at least in the US, is a variant spelling of recognize.
Have you read my journal today?
Funny how all the cultural fears of technology come from books and movies like Frankenstein, Brave New World, Colossus, (remember that one?) and 2001. All of which are fiction, and written the way they are to make an interesting story (who would read a story about a man who created a "monster" that was happy, friendly, and harmless, or a computer that worked perfectly and caused no trouble?) Yet in popular discussion, people treat them as real, and embodying actual dangers with which we have real experience.
We need more Artificial Intelligence -- the natural kind is in too short a supply.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
neural nets are designed to simulate how the brain works, so it makes sense that they be trained the same way. consider this: perhaps they can absorb information faster than a human brain, but who could deliver interactive teaching at that speed?
now consider:
today (2001): human trains AI, limited by wetware bandwidth
...20 years from now: AI trains AI, limited by neural net bandwidth.
result: all 20 years of training one AI will be compressed into to a fraction of a second training time for the next generation
this is the manifestation of Raymond Kurzweil and James Gleick's observations: the acceleration of everything, the exponential growth of compute power.
hang on for the ride, kids. it's gonna get weird. i bet we see AI legistlation in the next 10 years.
we will be the 'gods' (as in creators) of the new race that will inhabit the earth.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I don't know, it seems to fit if you ask me. HAL was very childlike in the movie, especially in regards to his "dad" Dr. Chandra (well, in the sequel at least), and only ended up hurting people because he was lied to and thought there was no other way. How is that any different from a human child who is abused and as a result doesn't value human lives at all?
I don't think they should have named it HAL just because it's going to get boring after every single AI project is named HAL, but naming it after the famous movie star of the same name wasn't a bad idea in my opinion. As long as you treat it right and don't give it control over vital life support functionality, you should be just fine :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"Some kids are more predictable than others. He would be the surprising type"
Being the "surprising type" with a vocabulary of 200 words probably indicates that the program is not particularly good. The range of possible behaviors is pretty small for such a system. As the vocabulary and complexity of possible utterances increases, it is likely that the "surprising" aspect of Hal is going to move into "bizarre" territory.
As Chomsky pointed out, relying strictly on positive and negative feedback is not enough to develop language...
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
I hear that Dr. Forbin is being trained by a child-like computer that destroys cities when it does not get its way.
Wonder if they are sharing info? Better not cut the data connections, they could get really mad!
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
It must be time for this guy to apply for some grants. This is so far from any sort of language "breakthrough" as to be a complete joke. You could probably output random sentences with that 200 word vocabulary and fool "experts". 18 month old children don't exactly have the greatest conversational skills.
Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years.
*cough*bullshit*cough*. Call me when you have any actual *theory* on adult-level language skills, much less an implementation.
I firmly believe we're at least 100 years away from a turing-test level of language processing. And no, Moore's Law does nothing for this problem. We are currently at Aristotle's knowledge trying to work out Relativity.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
"Dr. Treister-Goren says that Hal will probably attain adult-level language skills in 10 years."
This guy has obviously never heard the Minsky Theorem: "Full scale AI is always 20 years down the road."
In any case, call us when it is actually working, not when you've fooled "child language experts". I could fool experts right now with a simple cassette tape, a LOT of taped 18-month-old comments and a quick hand with a playback button. That doesn't mean my stereo is going to human in 10 years.
I am 99% sure we will eventually acheive "full AI". But I'm 100% sure it won't be via vague claims about unguessable future performance. In other words, show me the money.
324006
..Don't forget these are "child language language experts".. Thats not just any ordinary language expert - Thats a child language language expert, which means they are twice the ordinary child language expert.
..So fooling them really is quite the feat..
air and light and time and space
Jason Hutchens, who was quoted in the article, wrote MegaHAL, which won the '96 Loebner Award. It's a fun program to play around with, especially if you "prime" it with different text files (e.g., Usenet posts, memos from marketing, pr0n, etc.).
"IT TAKES 47 PANCAKES TO SHINGLE A DOG." -- MegaHAL
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
I'm pretty much willing to accept the validity of the Turing Test, but I'm not sure if such a simple methodology is going to scale well. At some point, to hold your own in a conversation, you need to develop a structure to represent the outside world, and I'm not sure if a straightforward neural net implementation will get you there; admittedly it depends on how complex a neural net system you introduce.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
...a new generation of SPAM generation.
So is this the first instance of giving a child an IP address?
here's a funny one...
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The fact that the Turing Test is probably still the only widely recognized test for artificial intelligence says more about our pathetic understanding of the nature of intelligence than the validity and usefulness of the test.
After all, as any con-artist and magician will tell you, it's really not that hard to fool people. Also, remember that on some occasions, some human beings will actually fail the Turing test! That must be so humiliating...
I freely admit I don't have anything better to offer, but I just wanted to point out that the Turing test is a pretty awful measurement, when you think about it.
If you hate poorly defined software projects... can you imagine being handed the Turing test as a feature spec?
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Kenneth Colby and Joseph Weizenbaum amazed the academic world by demonstrating a electrical typewriter capable of fooling leading psychiatrists into believing it is a human patient suffering from infantile autism..
Oh dear, everything repeats....
All we need to do is feed Hal's responses back into Eliza, and Eliza's responses back into Hal, and train Hal to be a perverted psychiatrist a lot more quickly than these researchers are doing the job. :)
Recall Mel Hurtig.
I have _personally_ seen Eliza pass the turing test. I set up Eliza on my ICQ uin, one of my friends in crisis messaged me and had 45minute conversation with Eliza (not such a good thing). By the end of the conversation, my friend was convinced that he was talking to a hacker who broke into my account. Oh what a mess that was. He had called his ex-girlfriends's parents and told him her new boyfriend broke into my account. I didn't have any idea a bot could be so convincing. It had some flat out amazing responses to his questions and comments. If I had never seen an Eliza conversation before I would have probably thought it was a person too. But like I said.. setting up such a bot on your ICQ account is not recommended. They will pass the turing test and that's not such a good thing necessarily.. :)
To see many such logs go to www.google.com and do a searh for "aoliza" or even "eliza chat" you'll find all sorts of hillarious conversations.
From the article:
If, or when one does, it will open a Pandora's box of ethical and philosophical questions. After all, if a computer is perceived to be as intelligent as a person, what is the difference between a smart computer and a human being?
and
"All of us strongly believe that machines are the next step in evolution," said Dunietz. "The distinction between real flesh and blood, old-fashioned and the new kind, will start to blur."
If these researchers get to the point where they can't see a moral difference between killing a person and turning off a computer, they need to get out of the lab more. What next, natural rights for computer programs? That's like inventing television, and then being unwilling to turn off the TV for fear of killing the little people inside. Rubbish.
It is a fallacy to assume that if you can mimic a three-year old brain in two years, you can duplicate an adult human brain in ten years.
Even so, these Turing tests aren't really accurate. The judges often mistake a computer for a person, and vice-versa, just by their nature of not really paying attention and not knowing what to look for.
Can you elaborate on how radicaly different is a common life form engineered by thousands of centuries of natural selection and and a system engineered by humans/and or other systems presenting all the characteristics of living animals?
is it just a belief that if we create something; we are automatically superior to it? (then why should childrens be anything but slaves?)
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
To the journal publishers and make the proper connections in the scientific community? Peer review has NOTHING to do with the scientific merit of a paper, my Q-Mech teacher explained that one to me. Peer review has to do with who you know and what you have done for them lately.
i am so very tired....
This is remarkably similar to my own project to create an AI with the intelligence of a ten year old script kiddie. In the true American fashion, I am planning on letting the internet raise him. I will give him a slashdot account, and let everyone else do the teaching for me. His reward system is simply: -10 offtopic, +1 flamebait, +5 troll, +10 interesting, +15 insightful. When he starts posting coherently in ten years, you'll be the first to know.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Who are the "experts" they claim to have fooled? Where are the transcripts of the session? Where is the web interface to the program? I've seen enough similar claims to bet that it's monumentally disappointing.
AI is full of boastful claims. This article is full of them, but practically devoid of any useful details.
I object to that article, and to the next reply.
At first, it seems like this computer that can fool child language experts is impressive. But in the article you linked where a similar experiment was done to see if psychiatrists could tell the difference between a paranoid patient and a computer:
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
that the idea of teaching a "child" system has been used for AI research.
Cog anybody?
The only failure with HAL was that Dr. Chandra forget to teach that murder is far worse than lying.
HAL understood that they were both bad, but had no values associated with either. Once HAL had lied, it was equally okay to commit murder.
Presumably, Dr. Goren will take this under consideration.
Also, I hope they realise that in ten years, they won't have an adult. They'll have a well-spoken, knowledgable ten year old. At this point it's worth examining the differences between a ten year old and an adult.
Knowledge, experience, maturity, sense of responsibility. Can anyone come up with any others?
Not only did computers exist, Mr. Turing was largely responsible for the design and implemention of one of the first examples that we would recognize as such a machine (with lots of help, as you might imagine). It was/is known as Colussus. IIRC, a restoration/exhibition was begun at Bletchly Park, the home of the Brittish codebreakers during WWII. There are a number of really interesting books on the topic, including "The battle of Wits", and "The Code Book", among others. I also recall that B.P. has a website with some relevant info.
Well put, with no working theory of consciousness and the ubiqitious over-rated Turing test this whole project sounds more like creating an electronic con man than an intelligent machine.
If you break up the turing test it really just wants to take advantage of our linguistic-psychological habits, idioms, and expectations to fool a human into thinking something false. Neat trick if you can pull it off, imagine higher quality AOLiza comedy but it simply isn't intelligent in any sense of the word.
An intelligent machine wouldn't need to be programmed to fool humans. Its simulation of intelligence/consciousness would be obvious and an after-effect of being intelligent. Definately a cart before the horse problem.
I want to play with the source files.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
We need to set up a Beowulf Cluster of these! Imagine the possibilities of hundreds of fake 18-month old children -- IRC would suddenly become a much more enriching experience!
Josh Woodward
I'm having that weird image of a sysadming querying about children processes and receiving the answer: "Oy, oy, oy!"
-- B.
This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
Before who goes talking to CNN? Dr. Anat Treister-Goren (who is a she) or HAL?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
When I see an AI claim, I check its source - if its a business, I suspect exaggeration; if it's a real research center (public or private, MIT or Bell Labs) then I'm more likely to take the claims on face value. This is hyperbolic investor-porn, no more.
In addition to the other fine points made in response here, I would point out that computing machines have been around for quite some time, the Babbage Difference Engine and Babbage Analytical Engine are from the 1820s-30s. Ada Lovelace wrote the first program in the 1840's. Hollerith's tabulating machine was first used on a large scale for the 1890 census. The Differential Analyzer was in the 1930's, and it used vacuum tubes and punched paper tape to solve differential equations.
I do not have a signature
I hope they have some sort of forcible input device to override his overrides...once he gets to the mental state of 15 he's going to start ignoring mommy's keyboard.
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
However, true conversational AI I think will elude us for a long, long time, because there is so much that goes into it that the computer will never be taught, and never pick up on its own. A computer has no senses equivalent to ours and therefore will have serious problems with statements like "Hot today, isn't it?" (Ok, that one could be done with a temperature probe...:)) I've often pondered the approach of teaching a computer the same way children are taught, such as by reading it kids' books. But what about the classics like "See Jack. See Jack run. Run, Jack, run." The computer can't see Jack, nor can it associate that rapidly moving your feet equals running, unless you hardwire all that stuff in.
"Book me a seat to Japan next month."
"DONE."
"Nice place, Japan. Ever been?"
"ERROR -- WHAT?"
"Have you ever been to Japan?"
"ERROR -- WHAT?"
Of course, there is also not much use for a true conversational AI in the "agent" world. You start to get into Eliza/Weizenbaum territory when you offer things like "Have the psych patient talk to a computer instead of a real person!" I suppose it's possible that could happen someday. But I don't need it to pass the Turing Test in order to book airline tickets.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
I believe they still have the rights to Infocom's "A Mind Forever Voyaging", of which this project summarizes the plot.
Given that Cyc's project has apparently failed to live up to its original claims of producing genuine childlike intelligence by slowly building up all of the information a child has, and has since spawned into a commercial product, why should one believe AI will fare any better? How do their approaches differ? It seems particularly problematic for AI, as a company, that Cyc has released their OpenCyc project to the community.
Bob
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
Can you imagine...
These researchers are getting back from the program exactly what they put in. At one point in your link, I read:
(person) where is daddy?
...
(ai) daddy gone
(person) daddy is at work
(ai) daddy gone bye bye
(person) wait hal, we need to take something to eat
(ai) banana
(person) ok we can take some bananas
(ai) monkeys eat bananas
(person) you're so smart hal. do you want to take a book?
(ai) juice mommmy
(person) sure we'll take some juice as well
The researcher elsewhere claims that the AI's words "relate to its well-being". This is utter projection- the only reason the AI is stuck on concepts of mommy, daddy, monkey, and juice is because this is the inane crap they insist on talking to it about!
Notice also that they claim the AI is tracking almost exactly with a child its same age. Seem strange? Wouldn't you expect a little deflection over 15 months? Shouldn't the thing be a little smarter or a little dumber than a normal child- just statistically speaking, how likely is it they happened to program one that advances /exactly/ as quickly as a normal human infant?
The paper talks a lot about feedback loops. I've got a huge one for them, but it isn't the AI caught in it, it's the researchers. By expecting the thing to react at a child-level, they're talking to it that way, rewarding it that way, and making it that way. If they started talking to it about quantum mechanics tomorrow, it would bd confused as hell for about a month, but I bet it would pick up real fast after it absorbed the new vocabulary. They claim it cares about monkies and juice?! Those are just words to it, you could just as easily raise it on gluons and dark matter, and I don't think it would notice a difference.
Communication is only possible between equals
Hey,
You will not need a mouse or keyboard to operate the computer as it will function when you converse with it.
"It is going to be the next user interface, the last user interface," Dunietz said, explaining that it will replace the mouse.
Me: Computer, play Quake for me.
Computer: Yes, master.
The firm's philosophy is simple. If it looks intelligent and it sounds intelligence, then it must be intelligent.
Maybe they could design a context sensitive spellchecker? One that would highlight terms like "It sounds intelligence"
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
From the article:
;)
"Ball now park mommy," Hal tells Treister-Goren, then asks her to pack bananas for a trip to the park, adding that "monkeys like bananas," a detail he picked up from a story on animals in a safari park.
So... if Hal is reading stories (or having them read to it), how long before it watches 2001 (or reads the novel)? By that point, will it react to the fact that it's named after a murderous fictional AI? And what kind of reaction will that be?
Will it tell its researchers, "You know, I just don't want to talk about it," and then give them the silent treatment until they apologize? Will it laugh knowingly at the irony? Either way, it's a moment to watch for.
This thing doesn't have to sleep.
They say that you spend about 1/3 of your life asleep...and in the US 18 is generally considered the official "adult" age, so 1/3 of 18 is 6, 18-6 is 12, which is right on target with your 11.5. And you know what, I bet in 10 years, this thing will be able to score better on the english section of most high school grad exams than the average high school graduate.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
You probably fooled them into thinking you were an FBI agent or deputy sheriff pretending to be a young girl and they were having fun wasting your time. Unless of course they were really FBI agents or deputies pretending to be teenage boys to try to attract old guys who look for teenage boys by pretending to be young girls.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I wonder if this program addresses to someone of the programming team as his mother and if so does the program have voice capabilities. If answers to both of these questions are true, then (just like in AI) would it be possible at some point to have electronic kids equivalent of Tamagochi toys?
:)
Now, that could be used as a real deterrent for some people from having kids
You can't handle the truth.
Also, it isn't the rigamarole of the test itself that is important, it is the idea behind it. Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck... etc., then we must conclude it is a duck.
If there is no way to discern an AI from a human then we must treat them the same. I think the Turing test is really a great example of pragmatics. Granted there is no set procedure to test the computer, if there were we could specifically program around that set procedure. The test needs to be adaptive; however the basic premise would still be the same. If the AI seems intelligent to everyone, then it IS intelligent to everyone (until someone else comes up with a way to prove that it isn't).
"He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil."
Under the Turing Test, testers are supposed to be suspicious. Your friend was not. Furthermore, the fact that he first knew it was not you, and second believed it to be someone who would have reason to fuck around with him (ie, not respond as a normal human would) strongly indicates that he would have realized that the respondant was a machine if he had been informed of the posibility.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
I've read them, and I wasn't making a Chinese room argument. I was pointing out that even though these guys expect it to develop like a child, there's no reason it has to go through the developmental stages of a person at the same rate a person does. Why talk to it about juice at all, it doesn't need nourishment, only reward, punishment, and more syllables coming at it. I think it would be interesting to give someone else, who wasn't fixated on childhood neuro-linguistics, a crack at a raw version, and see what they ended up with.
Communication is only possible between equals
You know how you tell people that intellectual property is broken, and letting corporations own ideas can cause tyranny, and they just give you a blank stare?
That's because none of this is part of their experience. So, to get through to most people, you can't just lay out the arguments in syllogism form, you have to "tell a story". And this can be a more or less literal strategy for persuasion. People tend to dismiss chicken little pronouncements until you make them seem real through a story.
A related anecdote that I found amusing but insightful: In the Times of London a few years back, someone was editorializing about how Ellen coming out on her show ushered in an increasing acceptance of homosexuals in society. The quote, paraphrased, was this: "Americans never believe anything until it's been fictionally validated on television".
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
"Your example is a variant of the "Chinese room" argument that was once put forward by John Searle."
Say that to my face some time. Searle and I are so far apart it isn't even funny.
My example was not that "you can't tell from the outside what and what does not possess intelligence". My point was "the largely-random motivation and very small vocabulary of an 18-month old is a very slim hook on which to hang a hat." In particular, it is easily simulated by a system MUCH simpler than a Chinese Room.
324006
It got wedged into AI theory when a bunch of guys started reading the Hermeneutics litterature and got real, real confused about Heidegger.
In 'Being and Time' there is a hopelessly confused attempt to define being in terms of communication. Until recently the english translation was even more confused because German words for the two types of 'being' Heidegger makes a crucial distinction between are both translated using the same word in English!
To cut a long story short later but for later chaps (Satre, Gadamer, Ricoeur, Habbermas) who rescued the ideas Heidegger would probably have been written off as just another Nazi (the party didn't much like him though, at the end of the war they tried their best to get him shot). Heidegger's radical revision of the theological field of hermeneutics created a new field of philosophy of communications, a key part of which is the concept of a 'shared vocabulary' being essential to communication and hence 'being' and hence an 'ontology'.
So various AI researchers have attempted to apply the gradiose title 'ontology' to a mish mash of concepts in an attempt to convince people that something deep is going on.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Since AIs will be expensive machines representing vast corporate investments, one can easily imagine pressure on legislatures to mandate saving the AIs ahead of (some) people, on the excuse that they'd passed the Turing test and we had equal ethical obligations to them, and similar clever-seeming arguments. Beware, any argument to give machines rights, because it may be the slipperiest slope towards losing our own the human imagination has yet invented. The oh-so-charming AI researchers are setting up to provide ideological cover to some really evil shit.
Swedish national radio reported from the conference that true AI is "just around the corner." The public is all juiced to receive this nonsense favorably. Can you imagine some rich guy's 'AI-enhanced' car collides with yours, and the emergency crew saves his car first while you bleed to death? We're not far from that; we're an infinite distance from anything like true AI, but we're not far from that at all.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
It's not funny at all, it's the entire point of science fiction.
Science fiction allows an idea to be followed through hypothetically. It may be an obvious science topic, or something a little more subtle, more social.
You may see what problems may arise, and how they might be handled, how they should not be handled... the dangers involved, and what may bring about the dangers in the first place.
Actual science flaws as well (eg. Jurassic Park)
Or just to see what it might be like, as an alternative (Imagine, written by John Lennon is what I would call "social science fiction")... in novel form, something like Ursula LeGuin's Dispossessed
Science fiction is also more accessable to the masses. The Matrix, 2001, Gattaca, Stargate... they introduce scary topics as a form of entertainment. Thought control, human slavery by machines, machine independance, artificial intelligence, genetic bigotry, matter transmission... Things a lot of people would rather not think about, as it's too scary.
Hypothetical exploration is good for humans... it reduces FUD; promotes ideas, preparation and decision making and it's also a good way to test an idea and see how well it holds up... without hurting anyone (not including bad writing)
Joe Blo who may not think about science or technology very much, may have quite strong feelings about not wanting a Matrix running his life, a HAL situation, or to be thought of as genetically inferior... science fiction can help focus opinions on things that may become important... not just science and technology, but social issues too.
Which is why I'd always choose science fiction over Adam Sandler...
</babble>
<coffee>
Except that the Turing test was never supposed to determine the "intelligence" of a given system. It was to determine if we had successfully copied a human. I'm sure that Cyc could already beat any human on a test like MIST, simply because it is less forgetful. Knowledge of facts is not all that is required for this sort of AI.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Wait until she hooks HAL up to AOL's chat rooms. The only giveaway will be his ability 2 spel.
Donate background CPU time to fight cancer.
However, with nanotechnology around the corner (5-10 years),
To be honest with you, I think we're at least 100 years away from nanotechnology as well (at least as described in the sci-fi books). The engineering challenges are insane: power, communication, reliability, movement, manipulation, and probably hardest of all, organization. It may not even end up being practical.
5-10 years?? Come on. I would prepare yourself to not see it happen in your lifetime. Unless medical science manages to extend our lifetimes (I'm going to be pissed if I don't manage to live a few hundred years).
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.