Why "specific contexts" ? The topics that you can talk about in a Turing test are endless, as well as the duration of the test. Wrong in both senses. Anyway "contexts" meant the kind of social situation. i.e. Chatting over an IM as opposed to talking in person.
The whole point about the Turing test is that the test itself provides the definition, Moronic and incorrect. So in your world someone can produce a test that defines intelligence as being able to play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe and that would be a reasonable definition of the term. Yeah, good luck with that. I said it better earlier, the test borrows from OUR implicit tools for judging intelligence. However the term "intelligence" (other than in your world of tic-tac-toe players) doesn't have a very good definition. So we don't really know how accurate it is.
If I discuss a problem with a co-worker, I also get a good idea of how intelligent they are, and if they understand the problem. How do you know? What standard are you comparing against? How are you recording the data? What sort of tests have you done to determine the significance of the data you are collecting? Whoops...you're probably don't none of those things in any useful way.
There is no reason why the same approach doesn't work with a computer program. A test that has some key commonalities with some other test is good reason to believe that passing one test means passing the other. However confusing a test for what it's testing for is a classic mistake.
No offense but just listen to yourself. "it should give a good indication of true intelligence and understanding".
Why? I mean while I agree that it is plausible that someone might create a machine that is indistinguishable from a person - in specific contexts - why does that necessitate a good indication of two things that are pretty hard to define to begin with?
..says something. The point of a Turing test is a gedankenexperiment. The idea that our idea of "human" comes from the fact that we don't have any formal criteria for defining it. Instead we assume that the people we meet (one the phone or online). Are human because we can't distinguish them from being so. In truth this isn't any more a real test than going out an buying and gassing a cat is somehow a real experiment proving superposition.
That said, even if we were to formulate an experiment from what Turing talked about I don't see how 59% qualifies as "indistinguishable".
I guess companies should continue to buy or otherwise influence reviews.
I just skimmed the actual study and it doesn't really provide much more info. It does make the claim that their methods are closer to the true number of pirated copies and refreshingly that these are not necessarily correlated with lost sales. However it's conclusions aren't all that interesting. My guess? This was more about their measurement techniques and the outcome was tacked on so it could get published (or have a chance of getting published)
The conclusion of that link is that it only 'depends' for lengths greater than 10m and for formats for which media doesn't exist yet. You're stretching the "it depends" clause there. Since Kogan does not appear to be selling cable for "in-wall" placement or for video players from the future. i.e. the context is restricted
Not to mention that buying for today and upgrading tomorrow may well still be the best bet.
Part of her research involves taking human breast cancer cells and treating them with a potent form of vitamin D. Within a few days, half the cancer cells shriveled up and died
This kind of thing always gets me chuckling. You realize that the number of compounds you can throw at tumor cells in a petri dish and see them die is orders of magnitude bigger than the the ones where the action is highly selective, where the dosage required to maintain that level at the site is safe.
A "pump and dump" scheme usually refers to someone attempting to inflate the value of something via some "backchannel" (i.e. media, word of mouth). What evidence is there that any of the recent media was orchestrated. Bitcoins caught the fancy of the Internet blogs just like Amy Chua did months back.
"Last friday we saw probably the first such scheme taking place"
Just as a courtesy how about you reserve the term "probably" for things that you can actually come up with a formal statement of their probability. It will make you look less silly.
Yes I would LOVE to meet someone who has a PHd who has significant expertise in some well-defined field - even if pretty narrowly defined like say Natural Language Processing. I find it interesting and refreshing beyond measure to meet someone who has mastery of a subject. Instead what I find are people with ridiculous degree designations. Like having a Masters in Computer Science after undergraduate work in Art. Now there's nothing wrong with either program but it's silly to think that someone who has never taken an Undergraduate discrete math course has much useful to contribute to the field of computer science proper (that is - the study of algorithms). There are also ridiculous masters programs that are so hard to define that it's difficult to determine who's qualified or not. In the end when you talk to these people, you reach the bottom of their knowledge in less than a minute.
IMHO if that's what the alternative is to where we currently are...then change will only make things worse.
Look, we get that you are convinced. However your conviction is nothing worth sharing. What would be worth sharing is a cogent argument *for* watching the video from the Woo Center? However you haven't got that. Why? Quite possibly because you don't know *WHY* you found the presentation compelling. Which might well be because you are unqualified to have a useful opinion on if the video has any weight.
Re:Sorry but it does not meet the criteria
on
Is Sugar Toxic?
·
· Score: 2
rule of thumb...When you say: "You need to"... watch the video/read the book/see the kiai master/pray to the great arkleseizure/try it/etc you communicate that you are far more convinced than cogent on the subject. Next I only had to go 23s into the video to see that it is a product of the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. A name that does not strike any high notes in terms of scientific rigour (They give lectures on Ayurveda and do research on TCM).
So far you give absolutely zero reason that the remaining 1 hour, 22 min and 30s of the video are worth the time of any rational person.
If I were to point out something in IT which consumes large amounts of money and produces very little of value. The answer is usually consultants. I've dealt with some from small specialized firms and others from large well-known firms and I have yet to be involved in a project where they actually provided technical expertise.
Far more often consultants are like diplomats they go to stakeholders find out what people want - hopefully remove truly stupid ideas - and then campaign for those ideas. No matter how ridiculous.
This is a completely ridiculous notion, how do you think the money gets to the "serious research" in the first place? Right, investment banks and the financial services industry!
Generally "no". While there are many branches of reasearch that *do* get a lot of funding directly from the financial sector - for example pharmaceuticals - that's not necessarily what I'd call 'serious research'.
By the way, scientific research can be a grind. Very few people get to be the guy who cures cancer or who invents a new way to power the world cleanly.
Even curing cancer requires a lot of grind. However that's because "science is hard". I don't know what you're doing but I have done some programming for this sector and while it's profitable it's not very interesting. In fact outside of real-time systems most of what I see people do in the financial sector can be done with R.
Remember that John Nash [wikipedia.org] (of A Beautiful Mind fame) received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the Nash Equilibrium"
So they don't teach logic in order to get a Chemistry degree eh? What you appear to be talking about is the contribution to science from a particular field. So yes Nash a mathematician contributed to the field of finance. However what you seem to be implying that that people (like you) in finance might have something useful to contribute to science, math or anything else...that is what we call "affirming the consequent"
The financial industry does a lot of work in developing new ways to store, access, and analyze data - work that is often highly useful to the scientific community.
Examples? Five specific ones published in reputable journals please.
Is the problem they are declaring "unsolvable". So to phrase it a bit more concisely it is "Finding a solution to the TSB in P time is unsolvable". The inference that solving it in an arbitrary amount of time is not necessarily unsolvable is taken as a given - at least to any audience who understands complexity theory.
The other thing you can conclude is that if you were to pick a child at random - score them on your "self-control" scale you can predict some other features within some standard error.
It does but in the same way as any other research.
They correlated self-control (based on some scale) with success (and this is old-news in child-development studies AFAIK). The issue is that all we know is that these children *are* self-controlled. We don't know that increasing self-control by method X creates the same effect.
However that is the next logical step in research...
Meh, it's kind of an idiot argument and "riddled" with holes. Why do games have to conform to your particular definition? Even so for seemingly the majority of played go sequences it does in fact have rules that are clearly interpretable. There are literally thousands of historical kifu where the board state is completely unambiguous.
You are also equivocating. When someone says the "rules are simple" they mean that the rules for valid placement of stones what is complicated is optimal placement of stones. Even given that competition has required the creation of "superko" rules (which TT includes) these are actually rarely used even in competitive play. The idea that players agree that the outcome is obvious causes the termination of the game is really a non-issue. Even if some play exists which would entirely reverse the game - the fact that the opposing player doesn't recognize it is really no different than someone resigning from Chess even though they had a chance. Besides this only matters to one of the players if they disagree. In which case, you simply play it out until there is agreement.
Your conclusion is also flawed. In practice would imply that in most plays there is quarrel and pretense and yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
"work" is ambiguous and slightly deceptive. What we should say is there is a "reported effect". That is different (from my perspective) as having a clinical effect.
Hróbjartsson & Gøtzsche did an interesting meta-analysis of studies with both a placebo and no-treatment arm. For binary outcomes (except pain) there was no significant difference and for continuous outcomes and binary pain outcomes there was a difference but it increased inversely with sample size. They postulate that what people call the "placebo effect" is really just a form of reporting bias. People have been "treated" or have gone though the motions of treatment and as a result they change their expectations.
I mean, what is more likely some mysterious force which crosses every clinical boundary...or that people are (unintentionally) fudging things a bit.
"worth it" would imply to me some kind of payoff period. Even if all your jobs until you die pay 30% over what you would have received with a lesser education seems like a pretty bad payoff period if the tuition is twice what it is elsewhere. The fact that there's more variance between salaries than tuition at an institution isn't a good sign either.
I don't even see the relevance of the Atom platform anymore. It used to be about power efficiency and they really got there with the Z series maxing out at 2.4W. This was, of course at the expense of processing power, addressable memory and such. However after the release of the SU7300 which maxes out at 10W - and doesn't have the limitations of the Atom. I get that there are some power savings in there with all the integration Intel is planning but I'm skeptical how much that bares out. My wife was recently in the market for a more portable machine for work and I steered her toward an machine with an SU7300 core. It's battery life rivaled my Z series netbook and was much more functional (in addition to the other things I've mentioned my netbook had a GMA 500 graphics controller which Intel severely hobbled in Windows 7). When that netbook died I replaced it with the ASUS UL30 - a bit more screen space, longer battery life, full 64 bit OS, well supported video hardware, up to 8GB of RAM...
Slashdot Mirror
Why "specific contexts" ? The topics that you can talk about in a Turing test are endless, as well as the duration of the test.
Wrong in both senses. Anyway "contexts" meant the kind of social situation. i.e. Chatting over an IM as opposed to talking in person.
The whole point about the Turing test is that the test itself provides the definition,
Moronic and incorrect. So in your world someone can produce a test that defines intelligence as being able to play a perfect game of tic-tac-toe and that would be a reasonable definition of the term. Yeah, good luck with that. I said it better earlier, the test borrows from OUR implicit tools for judging intelligence. However the term "intelligence" (other than in your world of tic-tac-toe players) doesn't have a very good definition. So we don't really know how accurate it is.
If I discuss a problem with a co-worker, I also get a good idea of how intelligent they are, and if they understand the problem.
How do you know? What standard are you comparing against? How are you recording the data? What sort of tests have you done to determine the significance of the data you are collecting? Whoops...you're probably don't none of those things in any useful way.
There is no reason why the same approach doesn't work with a computer program.
A test that has some key commonalities with some other test is good reason to believe that passing one test means passing the other. However confusing a test for what it's testing for is a classic mistake.
It's actually a case study which, you're right is low grade evidence. You establish your control by having sham sessions.
That bit should have read "on the researchers web site".
You can read the study here:
Oddly it's the only one not featured on the
It's a little interesting but it is only one subject and I'm a little skeptical about the descriptions used by the subject for the symptoms.
No offense but just listen to yourself. "it should give a good indication of true intelligence and understanding".
Why? I mean while I agree that it is plausible that someone might create a machine that is indistinguishable from a person - in specific contexts - why does that necessitate a good indication of two things that are pretty hard to define to begin with?
..says something. The point of a Turing test is a gedankenexperiment. The idea that our idea of "human" comes from the fact that we don't have any formal criteria for defining it. Instead we assume that the people we meet (one the phone or online). Are human because we can't distinguish them from being so. In truth this isn't any more a real test than going out an buying and gassing a cat is somehow a real experiment proving superposition.
That said, even if we were to formulate an experiment from what Turing talked about I don't see how 59% qualifies as "indistinguishable".
...and in other news water is wet.
I guess companies should continue to buy or otherwise influence reviews.
I just skimmed the actual study and it doesn't really provide much more info. It does make the claim that their methods are closer to the true number of pirated copies and refreshingly that these are not necessarily correlated with lost sales. However it's conclusions aren't all that interesting. My guess? This was more about their measurement techniques and the outcome was tacked on so it could get published (or have a chance of getting published)
The conclusion of that link is that it only 'depends' for lengths greater than 10m and for formats for which media doesn't exist yet. You're stretching the "it depends" clause there. Since Kogan does not appear to be selling cable for "in-wall" placement or for video players from the future. i.e. the context is restricted Not to mention that buying for today and upgrading tomorrow may well still be the best bet.
Part of her research involves taking human breast cancer cells and treating them with a potent form of vitamin D. Within a few days, half the cancer cells shriveled up and died
This kind of thing always gets me chuckling. You realize that the number of compounds you can throw at tumor cells in a petri dish and see them die is orders of magnitude bigger than the the ones where the action is highly selective, where the dosage required to maintain that level at the site is safe.
A "pump and dump" scheme usually refers to someone attempting to inflate the value of something via some "backchannel" (i.e. media, word of mouth). What evidence is there that any of the recent media was orchestrated. Bitcoins caught the fancy of the Internet blogs just like Amy Chua did months back.
"Last friday we saw probably the first such scheme taking place"
Just as a courtesy how about you reserve the term "probably" for things that you can actually come up with a formal statement of their probability. It will make you look less silly.
Yes I would LOVE to meet someone who has a PHd who has significant expertise in some well-defined field - even if pretty narrowly defined like say Natural Language Processing. I find it interesting and refreshing beyond measure to meet someone who has mastery of a subject. Instead what I find are people with ridiculous degree designations. Like having a Masters in Computer Science after undergraduate work in Art. Now there's nothing wrong with either program but it's silly to think that someone who has never taken an Undergraduate discrete math course has much useful to contribute to the field of computer science proper (that is - the study of algorithms). There are also ridiculous masters programs that are so hard to define that it's difficult to determine who's qualified or not. In the end when you talk to these people, you reach the bottom of their knowledge in less than a minute. IMHO if that's what the alternative is to where we currently are...then change will only make things worse.
Look, we get that you are convinced. However your conviction is nothing worth sharing. What would be worth sharing is a cogent argument *for* watching the video from the Woo Center? However you haven't got that. Why? Quite possibly because you don't know *WHY* you found the presentation compelling. Which might well be because you are unqualified to have a useful opinion on if the video has any weight.
rule of thumb...When you say: "You need to"... watch the video/read the book/see the kiai master/pray to the great arkleseizure/try it/etc you communicate that you are far more convinced than cogent on the subject. Next I only had to go 23s into the video to see that it is a product of the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. A name that does not strike any high notes in terms of scientific rigour (They give lectures on Ayurveda and do research on TCM). So far you give absolutely zero reason that the remaining 1 hour, 22 min and 30s of the video are worth the time of any rational person.
If I were to point out something in IT which consumes large amounts of money and produces very little of value. The answer is usually consultants. I've dealt with some from small specialized firms and others from large well-known firms and I have yet to be involved in a project where they actually provided technical expertise.
Far more often consultants are like diplomats they go to stakeholders find out what people want - hopefully remove truly stupid ideas - and then campaign for those ideas. No matter how ridiculous.
This is a completely ridiculous notion, how do you think the money gets to the "serious research" in the first place? Right, investment banks and the financial services industry!
Generally "no". While there are many branches of reasearch that *do* get a lot of funding directly from the financial sector - for example pharmaceuticals - that's not necessarily what I'd call 'serious research'.
By the way, scientific research can be a grind. Very few people get to be the guy who cures cancer or who invents a new way to power the world cleanly.
Even curing cancer requires a lot of grind. However that's because "science is hard". I don't know what you're doing but I have done some programming for this sector and while it's profitable it's not very interesting. In fact outside of real-time systems most of what I see people do in the financial sector can be done with R.
Remember that John Nash [wikipedia.org] (of A Beautiful Mind fame) received the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the Nash Equilibrium"
So they don't teach logic in order to get a Chemistry degree eh? What you appear to be talking about is the contribution to science from a particular field. So yes Nash a mathematician contributed to the field of finance. However what you seem to be implying that that people (like you) in finance might have something useful to contribute to science, math or anything else...that is what we call "affirming the consequent"
The financial industry does a lot of work in developing new ways to store, access, and analyze data - work that is often highly useful to the scientific community.
Examples? Five specific ones published in reputable journals please.
"would have been solvable in polynominal time."
Is the problem they are declaring "unsolvable". So to phrase it a bit more concisely it is "Finding a solution to the TSB in P time is unsolvable". The inference that solving it in an arbitrary amount of time is not necessarily unsolvable is taken as a given - at least to any audience who understands complexity theory.
....attached to vaguely defined requirements. It's what makes the consulting industry work!
The other thing you can conclude is that if you were to pick a child at random - score them on your "self-control" scale you can predict some other features within some standard error.
It does but in the same way as any other research. They correlated self-control (based on some scale) with success (and this is old-news in child-development studies AFAIK). The issue is that all we know is that these children *are* self-controlled. We don't know that increasing self-control by method X creates the same effect. However that is the next logical step in research...
Meh, it's kind of an idiot argument and "riddled" with holes. Why do games have to conform to your particular definition? Even so for seemingly the majority of played go sequences it does in fact have rules that are clearly interpretable. There are literally thousands of historical kifu where the board state is completely unambiguous.
You are also equivocating. When someone says the "rules are simple" they mean that the rules for valid placement of stones what is complicated is optimal placement of stones. Even given that competition has required the creation of "superko" rules (which TT includes) these are actually rarely used even in competitive play. The idea that players agree that the outcome is obvious causes the termination of the game is really a non-issue. Even if some play exists which would entirely reverse the game - the fact that the opposing player doesn't recognize it is really no different than someone resigning from Chess even though they had a chance. Besides this only matters to one of the players if they disagree. In which case, you simply play it out until there is agreement.
Your conclusion is also flawed. In practice would imply that in most plays there is quarrel and pretense and yet that doesn't seem to be the case.
and that revelation didn't make you any smarter...weird.
"work" is ambiguous and slightly deceptive. What we should say is there is a "reported effect". That is different (from my perspective) as having a clinical effect.
Hróbjartsson & Gøtzsche did an interesting meta-analysis of studies with both a placebo and no-treatment arm. For binary outcomes (except pain) there was no significant difference and for continuous outcomes and binary pain outcomes there was a difference but it increased inversely with sample size. They postulate that what people call the "placebo effect" is really just a form of reporting bias. People have been "treated" or have gone though the motions of treatment and as a result they change their expectations.
I mean, what is more likely some mysterious force which crosses every clinical boundary...or that people are (unintentionally) fudging things a bit.
"worth it" would imply to me some kind of payoff period. Even if all your jobs until you die pay 30% over what you would have received with a lesser education seems like a pretty bad payoff period if the tuition is twice what it is elsewhere. The fact that there's more variance between salaries than tuition at an institution isn't a good sign either.
Or is that just to say that the XBox has been hiding it's losses for a while now.
I don't even see the relevance of the Atom platform anymore. It used to be about power efficiency and they really got there with the Z series maxing out at 2.4W. This was, of course at the expense of processing power, addressable memory and such. However after the release of the SU7300 which maxes out at 10W - and doesn't have the limitations of the Atom. I get that there are some power savings in there with all the integration Intel is planning but I'm skeptical how much that bares out. My wife was recently in the market for a more portable machine for work and I steered her toward an machine with an SU7300 core. It's battery life rivaled my Z series netbook and was much more functional (in addition to the other things I've mentioned my netbook had a GMA 500 graphics controller which Intel severely hobbled in Windows 7). When that netbook died I replaced it with the ASUS UL30 - a bit more screen space, longer battery life, full 64 bit OS, well supported video hardware, up to 8GB of RAM...