Slashdot Mirror
Human vs Computer Intelligence
DrLudicrous writes "The NYTimes is running an article regarding tests devised to differentiate from human and computer intelligence. One example are captchas, which can consists of a picture of words, angled and superimposed. A human will be able to read past the superposition, while a computer will not, and thus fails the test. It also goes a bit into some of Turing's predictions of what computers would be like by the year 2000."
The difference between computer and human intelligence is the human ability to revel in his. That is, taunt others. Until a computer can get in my grill and explain to me on a colorful fashion that I am nothing more than a grab-ass-tic piece of *human* sh!t, then I won't think much of computers.
Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:
In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
A I mentioned at the bottom of this journal entry. I think a new version of the Turing test should be whether a computer can tell the difference between a Human and a Computer.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
[Kicks first man in balls]
First Man [falls over]: "AAAAAHH!"
Me: "Human."
[Kicks second man in balls]
Second Man [falls over]: "Gffffff-!"
Me: "Human."
[Kicks third man in balls]
Third Man [falls over]: "..."
Me: "He's the robot! Get 'im!!!"
What is music when you despise all sound?
You entered: noses
Possible responses: nose
Result: FAIL.
Wohoo! I'm a robot! This test proves it! Vegas here I come!
Why does this test make me feel like I just had a run-in with John Ashcroft?
You have a point, though. Data can read, unlike 23% of the American population.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
Involves measuring pupil dilation when asked a series of personal questions...very good method.
RTFA... that applies to moderators too.
I simply use my "Taco Test" (Inspired by the Invader Zim cartoon) to thwart chat bots and telemarketers. It's an amazing, powerful test that no computer or automated script can withstand.
I ask the "suspected bot" if they like tacos. If they give me an intelligent answer, they are not a bot. If they give me an answer like "Wanna see my hot pics go to http://192.168.1.112/hotbabezzzz.pl?2345" Then they are a bot.
This test also works on telemarketers in a slightly different fashion. I tell them to "STOP... I'll only buy your product if you send me a taco with it. If not, no deal." since there are big logistical problems with sending me a taco, they are thwarted every time. I'm sure this test would work equally well with any obscure food item.
>> You have a point, though. Data can read, unlike 23% of the American population
He also got laid, unlike 97% of the slashdot population.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
What I mean is, I don't think an intelligent being would be capable of creating something that is more intelligent than himself.
My dad was :).
Abort, Fail, Retry? I know how to fix it, but do you human?
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
A related story was the time I saw on Boston.com that one of their editors was getting a haircut and they had posted an online poll for users to choose a style. Remembering CMU's adventures in slashdot polling, I posted to that same messageboard a plea for students to help the poor guy out.
4000 robo-votes later, he had a mohawk. Then they showed pictures of him going home for mother's day, and his dad's embarassed look. The best part was the quote from the editor at the end of the story -- "I had fun with this and I hope all those hackers out there did too."
So, see, geeks? You too can make a difference.
Hate me!
Both neural networks and genetic algorithms (also genetic programming) can adapt to new situations and new problems. Humans are neural networks, and both neural networks and genetic algorithms can be programmed on a computer. The problem is simply that neural networks take a lot of processing power when using a single central processor (the way computers are typically designed), and work much more rapidly when done by a slower distributed neural network which does massive parallel processing (the human brain).
The computer is not at all limited. Any physical process can be computed by a Turing machine, which means by extension that any modern PC can compute anything. It is simply a question of time required to compute it. The brain is a physical system, and is thus Turing computable.
If there exists more to humanity than the physical, then computational theory does not claim that Turing machines can compute it. But the brain at least, and all of its adaptability to new situations and new problems, are computable.
For more information search for information on programming "neural networks" and "genetic algorithms".