In your other comment you were predicting JA's demise as a natural consequence of the evil South American gangster/politician. I dispute your interpretation as overly dramatic.
Rafael Correa is a close friend of Hugo Chavez, and both are known for using the weapon of speech as a lethal weapon
And so does every demagogic politician out there. Chavez is friends with many Latin American presidents despite USA's insistence of isolating him. Diplomacy, interests, whatever it is that connects presidents, trying to push some guilt by association of the portrayed evil dictator (not aligned with USA's interests, of course) is too naive.
Someone has to also Think to correct those answers though and if you suddenly have 300000 students you are going to find yourself in need of a lot of staff to do so.
Until cheating is dealt with in a satisfactory manner, I don't see how these online offerings will ever be a credible alternative to traditional schooling.
I'd like to think that "schooling" is not just about proving that you knew stuff because you passed exams and here's the certificate. What you're saying IS important in that sense but we must not lose the objective which SHOULD be imparting and encouraging knowledge.
Well, there's the "credit" of being able to shape the visibility of the discussion so I don't think this particular analogy is very accurate. There's a real and demonstrable use of mod points.
On topic: I did a bunch of courses Intro to AI and a couple of udacity's and found them quite interesting. I understood cheating was a possibility and that many people did but fixating on that seemed pointless. Producing something of value, applying the new knowledge, sharing and seeing what others had produced. All these were more important than a grade no one would ultimately care about.
There are some concerns with these types of education but the most important thing , imo, is to not get caught up in the "certification illusion" where the end goal ceases to be knowledge and implementation.
It means both depending on context. A lot of times they will be referred to as 'yanquis' although that could be looked as derogatory. I've given up arguing about this though.
To avoid confusion, I mostly say USA instead of America but there's no simple alternative to Americans (in Spanish that would be 'Estadounidenses').
The thing that would sit nice with non USA Americans is that if, by chance, they refer to themselves as Americans, USA Americans don't come telling them that they're wrong.
We're all right and the meaning depends on context.
First off, no. We didn't believe it. We were reading science fiction.
Second, it had a pretty cool explanation that implied that they would reduce all the possibilities so the foundation wold really have no choices as to what to do and therefore,wouldn't deviate from the plan.
Third, the plan was guided by the second foundation to prevent deviations (which did happen).
I had an interesting chat about how economy is taught and this popped out. Having a science where the mere prediction of an outcome might influence that outcome makes it absolutely interesting and quite chaotic.
To be fair, the citizens of Foundation knew about psycho-history and that they were destined to succeed (Hari Seldon's messages emphasized this aspect in every crisis message). The thing that needed to be kept from them was how the science actually worked so updated predictions wouldn't modify the large plan. In the meantime, the second foundation would be secretly checking that there were no deviations.
As the data we can store about are lives, systems and connections grows in volume and richness, these kind of statistical analysis can prove quite useful.
Doesn't really matter when they manufacture information and misdirect almost as much as the other two. IMHO, You'll easily notice it if you don't live in USA.
more to the point; what games are there for PC's these days?
I don't know if you're kidding or not. There's plenty of alternatives in every genre for PC gamers and with the rise of online markets like steam it only seems to be growing.
Are you sure IE does not require a reboot? From what I remember, Windows updates (of which IE seems to be one) usually end up with a "do you want to reboot now or later?".
Be careful though, when they ask for information to Twitter they're not asking simply for tweets. They probably want login info, ips, private messages, etc.
And USA, many times uses gag orders to prevent the services from alerting its users about the "snooping". Twitter successfully contested the right to alert an Icelandic pm, the creator of tor and some other people (who were involved with wikileaks one way or another) but they had to release the data anyway, in the end (If I recall correctly).
You'll find a lot of people who don't really use c, c++, c# or java who will demolish each of those languages for different and somewhat cliche reasons.
That said, from those who actually use the language, you're bound to find less absolute hate and more specific complains about problems that are solved in "easier ways" with other languages.
Me too. I couldn't find any from the contest and it felt too creepy to google "conversations with 13-year-olds"
You made me laugh.
Your analysis is correct. The thing to note here is that these kids seem to be announcing things and speaking their minds. They're not engaging in back and forth questioning, which is what we would assume would happen in a conversation during a turing test.
Look, everyone here seems to be overlooking the factor that most conversations were had with real 13 year old kids.
What I'd like to see is samples of those HUMAN to HUMAN conversations. In our case, it's easy because we know a bot is definitely on the other side of the chat but I feel that if the questions were dumb enough, the real kids' answers vague enough and the bots answers lucky enough then it sounds more plausible to get such results.
Of course, it's still probably sensationalistic and pointless because computers still don't seem to try and understand the meaning of thing but just grammar or words in isolation. They're not able to adjust to mistakes or fuzzyness in a proper manner either.
Also, from the article: Eugene "fooled" the testers almost 30 % (apparently, the bar) of the time. That should've made the summary.
I'd definitely like to take the test with those 25 vs 5 odds and see how the bot does.
Slashdot Mirror
In your other comment you were predicting JA's demise as a natural consequence of the evil South American gangster/politician. I dispute your interpretation as overly dramatic.
And so does every demagogic politician out there. Chavez is friends with many Latin American presidents despite USA's insistence of isolating him. Diplomacy, interests, whatever it is that connects presidents, trying to push some guilt by association of the portrayed evil dictator (not aligned with USA's interests, of course) is too naive.
But you can still be an example to be made of. Destroying/controlling you might offer some peace of mind to affected & powerful people.
Your comment reads as if you're the kind of person to equate Italians with mafiosos. Your concept of Ecuador might be a bit too dramatic.
Someone has to also Think to correct those answers though and if you suddenly have 300000 students you are going to find yourself in need of a lot of staff to do so.
Until cheating is dealt with in a satisfactory manner, I don't see how these online offerings will ever be a credible alternative to traditional schooling.
I'd like to think that "schooling" is not just about proving that you knew stuff because you passed exams and here's the certificate. What you're saying IS important in that sense but we must not lose the objective which SHOULD be imparting and encouraging knowledge.
Well, there's the "credit" of being able to shape the visibility of the discussion so I don't think this particular analogy is very accurate. There's a real and demonstrable use of mod points.
On topic: I did a bunch of courses Intro to AI and a couple of udacity's and found them quite interesting. I understood cheating was a possibility and that many people did but fixating on that seemed pointless. Producing something of value, applying the new knowledge, sharing and seeing what others had produced. All these were more important than a grade no one would ultimately care about.
There are some concerns with these types of education but the most important thing , imo, is to not get caught up in the "certification illusion" where the end goal ceases to be knowledge and implementation.
Try it and come back with your results. You'll probably be disappointed by reality.
It means both depending on context. A lot of times they will be referred to as 'yanquis' although that could be looked as derogatory. I've given up arguing about this though.
To avoid confusion, I mostly say USA instead of America but there's no simple alternative to Americans (in Spanish that would be 'Estadounidenses').
The thing that would sit nice with non USA Americans is that if, by chance, they refer to themselves as Americans, USA Americans don't come telling them that they're wrong.
We're all right and the meaning depends on context.
First off, no. We didn't believe it. We were reading science fiction.
Second, it had a pretty cool explanation that implied that they would reduce all the possibilities so the foundation wold really have no choices as to what to do and therefore,wouldn't deviate from the plan.
Third, the plan was guided by the second foundation to prevent deviations (which did happen).
Fourh, Science FICTION!
Distateful in what sense? I'm sorry, but all I'm reading from your complaint is that "association with marxism = Bad".
And it doesn't have to be a contest. Dune books are great and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Thanks. Very interesting.
Exactly.
I had an interesting chat about how economy is taught and this popped out. Having a science where the mere prediction of an outcome might influence that outcome makes it absolutely interesting and quite chaotic.
To be fair, the citizens of Foundation knew about psycho-history and that they were destined to succeed (Hari Seldon's messages emphasized this aspect in every crisis message). The thing that needed to be kept from them was how the science actually worked so updated predictions wouldn't modify the large plan. In the meantime, the second foundation would be secretly checking that there were no deviations.
As the data we can store about are lives, systems and connections grows in volume and richness, these kind of statistical analysis can prove quite useful.
I replied to your post. Also, slashdot has a system where the person with mod points can comment or moderate in one thread but not both.
There's varying degrees of "linux people" (here and elsewhere). I'm sure there will be sufficient numbers of people celebrating this progress.
Doesn't really matter when they manufacture information and misdirect almost as much as the other two. IMHO, You'll easily notice it if you don't live in USA.
I don't know if you're kidding or not. There's plenty of alternatives in every genre for PC gamers and with the rise of online markets like steam it only seems to be growing.
change a comma and patent it further... :/
Are you sure IE does not require a reboot? From what I remember, Windows updates (of which IE seems to be one) usually end up with a "do you want to reboot now or later?".
Be careful though, when they ask for information to Twitter they're not asking simply for tweets. They probably want login info, ips, private messages, etc.
And USA, many times uses gag orders to prevent the services from alerting its users about the "snooping". Twitter successfully contested the right to alert an Icelandic pm, the creator of tor and some other people (who were involved with wikileaks one way or another) but they had to release the data anyway, in the end (If I recall correctly).
You'll find a lot of people who don't really use c, c++, c# or java who will demolish each of those languages for different and somewhat cliche reasons.
That said, from those who actually use the language, you're bound to find less absolute hate and more specific complains about problems that are solved in "easier ways" with other languages.
You made me laugh.
Your analysis is correct. The thing to note here is that these kids seem to be announcing things and speaking their minds. They're not engaging in back and forth questioning, which is what we would assume would happen in a conversation during a turing test.
My point was that there was a greater chance of speaking with a human than with a bot. That might alter your perception.
Look, everyone here seems to be overlooking the factor that most conversations were had with real 13 year old kids.
What I'd like to see is samples of those HUMAN to HUMAN conversations. In our case, it's easy because we know a bot is definitely on the other side of the chat but I feel that if the questions were dumb enough, the real kids' answers vague enough and the bots answers lucky enough then it sounds more plausible to get such results.
Of course, it's still probably sensationalistic and pointless because computers still don't seem to try and understand the meaning of thing but just grammar or words in isolation. They're not able to adjust to mistakes or fuzzyness in a proper manner either.
Also, from the article: Eugene "fooled" the testers almost 30 % (apparently, the bar) of the time. That should've made the summary.
I'd definitely like to take the test with those 25 vs 5 odds and see how the bot does.
What do you mean, you kettles?