You should not view your co-workers as enemies. The view of the office as a battleground, if anything, is contributing to the sort of atmosphere this very discussion is concerned with getting rid of.
Yes, I agree.
It's frightening that yours is the only post I've read so far on this story that, if I had moderator points, I would moderate up...
the point is, if you don't make it a warzone, the company will perform better financially. (Of course, I'm assuming that is a good thing; perhaps I'm wrong, and "playing the game" is the end in and of itself?)
Whether your inspiration comes from the Art of War or Carnegie, Machivelli or Atwater, learning to play politics and spin-doctor can't come too soon.
I say, if your work is good enough to provide value to the company, playing politics should never outweigh that. If you're trying to cover up shitty work by playing politics, how does that help the financial health of the company? Business would be more efficient and make more money if people concentrated on doing work, not figuring out how to cover up for not doing work by playing politics.
All these are basic errors, when folk who program,
or set-up systems HAVE to use Correct Syntax on
Command Lines and in Programs.
Your compiler should catch errors comparable to the your/you're mistake.
The reason why English (and all natural languages) are so much more flexible and usable than computer languages is precisely because they allow communication even in the presence of noisy data.
If you understand what was being communicated, what is the point of correcting the message? The only reason I can see is to enforce an arbitrary hierarchy where you are trying to establish yourself as a superior person to the one who made the mistake, based on nothing other than the fact that you learned the rules of grammar from your grade-school teacher and they apparently didn't, or forgot, or made a typo. Correcting the mistake, when miscommunication because of the mistake is not an issue, is a waste of time. The message has been communicated successfully. Move on!
dude, if you understood what he meant, what's the problem? I suspect you are simply trying to enforce arbitrary grammar rules because you had to learn them at an early age and now can use them to make fun of people so that the tradition continues.
Languages change. The fact that the confusion between "you're" and "your" is so common may be an indication that the distinction is becoming irrelevant in English.
If you understand what is being communicated, why bother wasting time trying to point out to the person that they made a mistake that doesn't really matter, since you know what they were trying to say? In the case provided, is there any real chance of miscommunication?
okay, this "constant game of politics" is not the most efficient way of conducting business. Decisions get made because of this "game" that end up being bad for the financial health of the company. All the frightened programmers here posting about "kissing ass" and "playing the game" are surrendering to what they perceive as the current "business climate" instead of showing by their work that they can provide a benefit to the company. And the managers who make decisions based on "politics" instead of actual work performance are hurting their company financially. Eventually the owners of the company will realize this and politics will recede from the workplace. Yes I know it is not likely to be within my lifetime, but still: politics is NOT the absolute best way to get something done. (You may defend "politics" as being necessary to enable communication, etc.; however, I'm saying that there are other ways of achieving the same and better results. Just as we look back with disdain on the concept that slavery was the most efficient way to produce cotton, so will future generations look back on "playing politics" as a terribly unfair and inefficient way of getting business done.)
if you can't hang with the company you're with now, start your own. or work on an open source project and become so good people will want to hire you because your work will benefit them. the best revenge is living well.
What you don't seem to realize is that you can beat others and still be sufficiently intelligent to construct weapons, and creative enough to provide entertainment...
That's the question. I'm saying you won't create weapons and entertainment as good or as quickly as the weird, funny-looking, crippled, ugly Dr. Strangelove-type geeks can do for you. So your society will be easily defeated by others that don't beat up on geeks.
A society that requires strength in all areas will function quite well
I'm saying, specialization of roles will yield greater and quicker advances than one role trying to do everything.
If you want to be left alone, by all means, move the fuck away... Go live on an island by yourselves and create your paradise of weakness and dysfunction...
the theory is that a society built on your ideals will not survive as long as one where you leave the geeks alone to produce far better weapons, entertainment devices, etc.
Despite your special talents, if your life is more miserable than not because of a genetic disorder, is it fair to inflict the same or worse on your children??
maybe the lives of those with special talents is more miserable because of the way society treats people with autistic tendencies. If society was more tolerant towards those of us who are not social, my life (for one) would be much much less miserable.
are a set of rules an symbols enough to encapsulate intellegence?
This is probably rehashing arguments that appear elsewhere, but it seems to me Searle is assuming that a native speaker isn't doing the exact same thing as the system under discussion.
If I ask the system "do you understand what you just said" and it responds in the same way a native speaker would, to me, the system is a native speaker. To ask the human in the system whether he understands what he just said is like taking the brain out of a native speaker and asking it "do you understand what you just said" (as others have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion)...
Let's say that one could memorize all of the rules for Chinese, and you could hold a conversation in it, fooling native Chinese speakers into thinking you're actually Chinese. Now I ask you, in English, if you have any idea what you just said; you would say "no", because you're just following the rules you memorized.
I would submit that the "rules for Chinese" are what actually "understand" Chinese. That is, the people who came up with those rules encoded their knowledge of Chinese into rules. If those rules are good enough, you would be able to ask them your question and the rules would produce an answer that would satisfy you as being human.
Surprisingly (or maybe not?), people will have extended conversations with it, returning for days and weeks asking it if it feels horny, sending it pictures, asking it to call or turn on its webcam... all that good stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
You should not view your co-workers as enemies. The view of the office as a battleground, if anything, is contributing to the sort of atmosphere this very discussion is concerned with getting rid of.
Yes, I agree.
It's frightening that yours is the only post I've read so far on this story that, if I had moderator points, I would moderate up...
the point is, if you don't make it a warzone, the company will perform better financially. (Of course, I'm assuming that is a good thing; perhaps I'm wrong, and "playing the game" is the end in and of itself?)
Whether your inspiration comes from the Art of War or Carnegie, Machivelli or Atwater, learning to play politics and spin-doctor can't come too soon.
I say, if your work is good enough to provide value to the company, playing politics should never outweigh that. If you're trying to cover up shitty work by playing politics, how does that help the financial health of the company? Business would be more efficient and make more money if people concentrated on doing work, not figuring out how to cover up for not doing work by playing politics.
All these are basic errors, when folk who program,
or set-up systems HAVE to use Correct Syntax on
Command Lines and in Programs.
Your compiler should catch errors comparable to the your/you're mistake.
The reason why English (and all natural languages) are so much more flexible and usable than computer languages is precisely because they allow communication even in the presence of noisy data.
If you understand what was being communicated, what is the point of correcting the message? The only reason I can see is to enforce an arbitrary hierarchy where you are trying to establish yourself as a superior person to the one who made the mistake, based on nothing other than the fact that you learned the rules of grammar from your grade-school teacher and they apparently didn't, or forgot, or made a typo. Correcting the mistake, when miscommunication because of the mistake is not an issue, is a waste of time. The message has been communicated successfully. Move on!
Languages change. The fact that the confusion between "you're" and "your" is so common may be an indication that the distinction is becoming irrelevant in English.
If you understand what is being communicated, why bother wasting time trying to point out to the person that they made a mistake that doesn't really matter, since you know what they were trying to say? In the case provided, is there any real chance of miscommunication?
okay, this "constant game of politics" is not the most efficient way of conducting business. Decisions get made because of this "game" that end up being bad for the financial health of the company. All the frightened programmers here posting about "kissing ass" and "playing the game" are surrendering to what they perceive as the current "business climate" instead of showing by their work that they can provide a benefit to the company. And the managers who make decisions based on "politics" instead of actual work performance are hurting their company financially. Eventually the owners of the company will realize this and politics will recede from the workplace. Yes I know it is not likely to be within my lifetime, but still: politics is NOT the absolute best way to get something done. (You may defend "politics" as being necessary to enable communication, etc.; however, I'm saying that there are other ways of achieving the same and better results. Just as we look back with disdain on the concept that slavery was the most efficient way to produce cotton, so will future generations look back on "playing politics" as a terribly unfair and inefficient way of getting business done.)
if you can't hang with the company you're with now, start your own. or work on an open source project and become so good people will want to hire you because your work will benefit them. the best revenge is living well.
we'll see.
What you don't seem to realize is that you can beat others and still be sufficiently intelligent to construct weapons, and creative enough to provide entertainment...
That's the question. I'm saying you won't create weapons and entertainment as good or as quickly as the weird, funny-looking, crippled, ugly Dr. Strangelove-type geeks can do for you. So your society will be easily defeated by others that don't beat up on geeks.
A society that requires strength in all areas will function quite well
I'm saying, specialization of roles will yield greater and quicker advances than one role trying to do everything.
If you want to be left alone, by all means, move the fuck away... Go live on an island by yourselves and create your paradise of weakness and dysfunction...
yep you've got my life's dream down.
no. assumes that you are extremely selfish and want the world to accommodate your every wish (as I do) that's all.
the theory is that a society built on your ideals will not survive as long as one where you leave the geeks alone to produce far better weapons, entertainment devices, etc.
The argument goes like this: by treating me, and others like me, more fairly, you will benefit.
the geeks might give you the means to amuse yourself even more, in ways you find much more satisfying, if you left them alone to do their thing
Despite your special talents, if your life is more miserable than not because of a genetic disorder, is it fair to inflict the same or worse on your children??
maybe the lives of those with special talents is more miserable because of the way society treats people with autistic tendencies. If society was more tolerant towards those of us who are not social, my life (for one) would be much much less miserable.
"I get my jollies off of screwing up computer systems that belong to people I don't even know!"
Maybe they're trying to get back at people who get their jollies off of humiliating and teasing people they don't even know.
yeah, why doesn't slashdot openly publish their user browser stats
a lot of the ancient greeks were pederasts, Socrates for example
before he became a gimp, fdr had affairs
dude, I've bought several of Mark Watson's books, they rule and have helped me a lot.
are a set of rules an symbols enough to encapsulate intellegence?
This is probably rehashing arguments that appear elsewhere, but it seems to me Searle is assuming that a native speaker isn't doing the exact same thing as the system under discussion.
If I ask the system "do you understand what you just said" and it responds in the same way a native speaker would, to me, the system is a native speaker. To ask the human in the system whether he understands what he just said is like taking the brain out of a native speaker and asking it "do you understand what you just said" (as others have pointed out elsewhere in this discussion)...
Let's say that one could memorize all of the rules for Chinese, and you could hold a conversation in it, fooling native Chinese speakers into thinking you're actually Chinese. Now I ask you, in English, if you have any idea what you just said; you would say "no", because you're just following the rules you memorized.
I would submit that the "rules for Chinese" are what actually "understand" Chinese. That is, the people who came up with those rules encoded their knowledge of Chinese into rules. If those rules are good enough, you would be able to ask them your question and the rules would produce an answer that would satisfy you as being human.
But what should we set this "smarter than a mere human emulator" to do to prove itself?
Make money.
now it won't even get archived!
<nelson>HA HA</nelson>
Surprisingly (or maybe not?), people will have extended conversations with it, returning for days and weeks asking it if it feels horny, sending it pictures, asking it to call or turn on its webcam... all that good stuff.
could be money in this.
ah yes, the turkey barn...sacrificing trees to house a death row prison for defenceless creatures so americans can conform on thanksgiving.