"everything from a form letter to a random word generator would qualify as a turing related as you can't tell just by looking at the words whether they are computer or human generated."
Precisely. A controller selects the right tool for the job. A Turing Test might include the request to write a poem (indeed Turing included such a request in the paper that proposed the test). This program could be used to answer such input. Thus, it has something to do with the Turing Test. By extension, exaggerating, we can see how a headline writer might slip down the slope to "Turing Test Passed!!1", to grab some attention.
The reaction, that this has "NOTHING" at all to do with the Turing Test, is also hyperbole. Perhaps you have been trolled?
Function-argument syntax is a big factor holding up AI. Translating between natural language subject-predicate syntax and function-argument creates an impedance mismatch, introducing needless complexity. NLP is probably AI complete, meaning the algorithms devised to solve linguistic tasks such as recognizing linguistic delimiters (spaces between words instead of underscores, phrases) will apply in other areas of AI.
Anyway, the language designers harping on function-argument consistency everywhere are misguided, and throttling progress.
Exactly. I want to include this algorithm as an agent in my chatbot system, to respond when a user asks for a poem.
Other agents can handle the interaction about the poem, should there be any followup questions.
Okay saying "Turing Test Passed" is an exaggeration. But so is the contrary, that this program has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turing Test. This program can help, when combined with other agents, to pass the Turing Test. That's why Turing included a question about writing a poem in his essay, because perhaps he read poetry, and might have been interested in a computer-generated poem.
Then if you ask questions about the poem, okay you're being like a teacher, so you have another smarter agent read the poem to answer those type questions.
I would say, "generating content and then seeing if you could tell if a computer made it" is definitely an important part of the Turing Test. To have a conversation, the computer generates content. The algorithm described in this story could be used in a Turing Test to generate content in response to a user request such as: "write me a poem."
From Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence":
"I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning."
So if fewer than 70 percent of the journals rejected it, it would still pass by Turing's criterion.
Food companies used to use formaldehyde as a preservative. Wasn't it obviously safe and effective, as the research of the day proved? Can you think of any other examples where the research overwhelmingly said something was safe and effective, but it wasn't?
Are you an anti-vaxer? Doesn't the research overwhelmingly show that vaccines are safe and effective? Why doesn't everyone accept that research?
Do you think that the research shows overwhelmingly that global climate change is human-caused? How many disagree, and fight tooth and nail against the conclusions of that research?
"Why can't they work for free you mean? I can think of a few reasons."
Does Red Hat work for free? Do Google Chrome developers?
If the research is so overwhelming, why is Monsanto afraid to label foods GMO? If they can prove that their modifications are safe, why not let me know on the label?
Once again: didn't the research show that tobacco didn't cause cancer at one time? Didn't tobacco companies fight against warning labels? How is the situation with Monsanto now not eerily similar?
Yes, we should trust Monsanto when they say it's safe, just like we trusted the tobacco companies when they debunked the "smoking causes cancer" myths. Oh wait...
Why can't Monsanto open source everything? So we can get many eyes to make the bugs shallow?
Disagree. Why did some fish go on land, others not? I think there is some element of will, choice, involved. Some animals are naturally curious and want to explore, and with epigenetics can push their own evolution in ways they choose. We can do it; eyeglass technology means we don't have to be subject to evolutionary pressures relating to eyesight. We can choose which direction we want to go in. I think animals are similar. There is much more going on than naive realism thinks.
The cops would have had no reason to hassle him without the law. Some cop from their union said on the radio, "we were told to enforce that law. Pressure came from above, because some community or business wanted that law enforced." (Not an exact quote, but that was the gist.)
So: first, that law should not be on the books. Second, the cops should not use deadly force or anything close to it during such minor stops.
But my main point: take away the law the cops used to harass the guy in the first place.
MOOCs provide programming exercises, and forums to ask questions. The problem is with the silly honor code, which results in cryptic, deliberately obfuscated posts that beat around the bush and encourage deviousness, instead of letting students help each other with direct clear answers.
Yes, the source of police brutality is really the rich white communities that complain to the police, and the police listen to them preferentially because they're so white, and rich.
Change the laws so that selling "loosies" like the guy in New York who was killed is legal. But someone complained to the cops to get them to enforce the ban, and someone got the ban legislated in the first place. There's where the battles should be fought: change the law, stop listening to the rich pasty white mofos who are really behind draconian injustice.
Do they really need so much water for golf courses in the desert? Yet they exist in Yuma. The problem is the very rich using any amount of water for whatever they want. Also lack of business investment in more basic research in solar desalination, for example. The market wants to eliminate free lunches because they're bad for business.
The teacher can teach without a closed fist, holding some knowledge back. That's what tests are: holding some knowledge back. Instead, let the teacher try to transfer his knowledge as transparently and openly and clearly as possible. Make it clear when the teacher runs up against something about the subject we don't know yet, instead of glossing over it as so often happens.
Teachers should not need the punishment of grades to teach effectively. Consider Socrates. Did he need grades?
although teachers may be required to submit a final grade, there's no requirement for them to decide unilaterally what that grade will be. Thus, students can be invited to participate in that process either as a negotiation (such that the teacher has the final say) or by simply permitting students to grade themselves. If people find that idea alarming, it's probably because they realize it creates a more democratic classroom, one in which teachers must create a pedagogy and a curriculum that will truly engage students rather than allow teachers to coerce them into doing whatever they're told. In fact, negative reactions to this proposal ("It's unrealistic!") point up how grades function as a mechanism for controlling students rather than as a necessary or constructive way to report information about their performance.
Slashdot Mirror
If you only get fooled 30% after five minutes the program wins, according to Turing's original proposal.
This program can be used as an agent, one among many others that might handle questions about the poem.
"everything from a form letter to a random word generator would qualify as a turing related as you can't tell just by looking at the words whether they are computer or human generated."
Precisely. A controller selects the right tool for the job. A Turing Test might include the request to write a poem (indeed Turing included such a request in the paper that proposed the test). This program could be used to answer such input. Thus, it has something to do with the Turing Test. By extension, exaggerating, we can see how a headline writer might slip down the slope to "Turing Test Passed!!1", to grab some attention.
The reaction, that this has "NOTHING" at all to do with the Turing Test, is also hyperbole. Perhaps you have been trolled?
It is one tool to use for possible Turing Test questions.
Saying it has "NOTHING" to do with the Turing Test is hyperbole.
Function-argument syntax is a big factor holding up AI. Translating between natural language subject-predicate syntax and function-argument creates an impedance mismatch, introducing needless complexity. NLP is probably AI complete, meaning the algorithms devised to solve linguistic tasks such as recognizing linguistic delimiters (spaces between words instead of underscores, phrases) will apply in other areas of AI.
Anyway, the language designers harping on function-argument consistency everywhere are misguided, and throttling progress.
Exactly. I want to include this algorithm as an agent in my chatbot system, to respond when a user asks for a poem.
Other agents can handle the interaction about the poem, should there be any followup questions.
Okay saying "Turing Test Passed" is an exaggeration. But so is the contrary, that this program has nothing whatsoever to do with the Turing Test. This program can help, when combined with other agents, to pass the Turing Test. That's why Turing included a question about writing a poem in his essay, because perhaps he read poetry, and might have been interested in a computer-generated poem.
Then if you ask questions about the poem, okay you're being like a teacher, so you have another smarter agent read the poem to answer those type questions.
The call for poems is the question. The poem is the answer.
Turing even included a "write me a poem" question in his example of a Turing Test.
The readers are the interrogators. They ask: "Write me a poem." The computer responds.
The ask-response interaction is a one-question interrogation.
I would say, "generating content and then seeing if you could tell if a computer made it" is definitely an important part of the Turing Test. To have a conversation, the computer generates content. The algorithm described in this story could be used in a Turing Test to generate content in response to a user request such as: "write me a poem."
In the paper, Turing has the computer respond:
"A : Count me out on this one. I never could write poetry."
But the computer might also use a poetry-writing algorithm to answer with a poem.
From Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence":
"I believe that in about fifty years' time it will be possible, to programme computers, with a storage capacity of about 10^9, to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 per cent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning."
So if fewer than 70 percent of the journals rejected it, it would still pass by Turing's criterion.
Well, the Turing Test as envisioned by Turing in "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" included the question:
"Q: Please write me a sonnet on the subject of the Forth Bridge."
So this program could help with those types of questions in a Turing Test.
Food companies used to use formaldehyde as a preservative. Wasn't it obviously safe and effective, as the research of the day proved? Can you think of any other examples where the research overwhelmingly said something was safe and effective, but it wasn't?
Are you an anti-vaxer? Doesn't the research overwhelmingly show that vaccines are safe and effective? Why doesn't everyone accept that research?
Do you think that the research shows overwhelmingly that global climate change is human-caused? How many disagree, and fight tooth and nail against the conclusions of that research?
"Why can't they work for free you mean? I can think of a few reasons."
Does Red Hat work for free? Do Google Chrome developers?
If the research is so overwhelming, why is Monsanto afraid to label foods GMO? If they can prove that their modifications are safe, why not let me know on the label?
Once again: didn't the research show that tobacco didn't cause cancer at one time? Didn't tobacco companies fight against warning labels? How is the situation with Monsanto now not eerily similar?
Does it also evolve a blind spot, like in humans?
Nature laughs at your naive realism. The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, but stranger than you can imagine.
Yes, we should trust Monsanto when they say it's safe, just like we trusted the tobacco companies when they debunked the "smoking causes cancer" myths. Oh wait...
Why can't Monsanto open source everything? So we can get many eyes to make the bugs shallow?
How did eyes evolve? The structures are too complex to be accounted for by traditional evolutionary explanation mechanisms.
"Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public." - J. B. S. Haldane
Disagree. Why did some fish go on land, others not? I think there is some element of will, choice, involved. Some animals are naturally curious and want to explore, and with epigenetics can push their own evolution in ways they choose. We can do it; eyeglass technology means we don't have to be subject to evolutionary pressures relating to eyesight. We can choose which direction we want to go in. I think animals are similar. There is much more going on than naive realism thinks.
The cops would have had no reason to hassle him without the law. Some cop from their union said on the radio, "we were told to enforce that law. Pressure came from above, because some community or business wanted that law enforced." (Not an exact quote, but that was the gist.)
So: first, that law should not be on the books. Second, the cops should not use deadly force or anything close to it during such minor stops.
But my main point: take away the law the cops used to harass the guy in the first place.
MOOCs provide programming exercises, and forums to ask questions. The problem is with the silly honor code, which results in cryptic, deliberately obfuscated posts that beat around the bush and encourage deviousness, instead of letting students help each other with direct clear answers.
Is he first to market? MOOCs offer app-writing classes for free.
Yes, the source of police brutality is really the rich white communities that complain to the police, and the police listen to them preferentially because they're so white, and rich.
Change the laws so that selling "loosies" like the guy in New York who was killed is legal. But someone complained to the cops to get them to enforce the ban, and someone got the ban legislated in the first place. There's where the battles should be fought: change the law, stop listening to the rich pasty white mofos who are really behind draconian injustice.
"Short answer there is no free lunch!"
http://subbot.org/coursera/big...
Do they really need so much water for golf courses in the desert? Yet they exist in Yuma. The problem is the very rich using any amount of water for whatever they want. Also lack of business investment in more basic research in solar desalination, for example. The market wants to eliminate free lunches because they're bad for business.
Because then I could print a car at home cheaper than paying a dealership? Would we even need an "industry" anymore?
The teacher can teach without a closed fist, holding some knowledge back. That's what tests are: holding some knowledge back. Instead, let the teacher try to transfer his knowledge as transparently and openly and clearly as possible. Make it clear when the teacher runs up against something about the subject we don't know yet, instead of glossing over it as so often happens.
Teachers should not need the punishment of grades to teach effectively. Consider Socrates. Did he need grades?
Students can be motivated in other ways than by tests and grades. Using tests and grades really teaches kids that they should dislike school.
Alfie Kohn makes The Case Against Grades.
A favorite passage: