That said, I am quite willing to be persuaded that the problem really is beyond A.I. Would you care to give some kind of, in your opinion, really hard examles that might fool A.I. forever?
It isn't that I think the problem is beyond A.I. I think nothing less than AI will be able to do true accurate translations. The software that they are using does not seem to be true AI (i.e. capable of 'sentient' creative thought), and the extreme difficulty in translating (especially between English and Japanese) is that it is not simply "pattern matching". In order to translate well, one must really be able to think in the languages he/she wants to translate. Language is not code and cannot be translated as such.
Given some form of A.I. with true ability to think creatively, I think good, accurate translations certainly are possible.
...the point of this approach is to look at existing correct translations and learn a pattern matching off of them.
One thing I question is, what exactly is a correct translation? I often see Japanese->English and English->Japanese translations, and quite often, though the translations are arguably correct, they are not how I would have said things, and sometimes I even feel that the translations are wrong because even though the words and phrasing are correct they are missing the nuances/emotions/etc. of the situation.
I don't see how pattern recognition software, no matter how smart, can translate accurately, unless the ability to think creatively is also included (i.e. what I personally think of as true A.I.).
I'm not saying this software is a bad idea, and for some languages it may even be able to work very well...but for others (such as Japanese in my experience) which are so completely different not only in words and grammar but in thinking style...well, I think at best we will get a less "engrish"y version of babelfish.
Of course, this is all my humble opinion and I am most certainly not an expert on linguistics or A.I.
While I am all for coming closer to a universal translator of sorts, I can't imagine any software outside of AI being able to pull it off.
As a person who speaks both English and Japanese, I can't believe that anyone could ever come up with an algorithm to translate between these languages. So much of it is context and nuance based, not to mention that there are words in the languages that simply do not exist in the other language so the only way to really understand it and make an attempt to translate is to think in the language.
Given the number of ways to translate even single words and phrases between Japanese and English, I can't imagine any algorithm derived from comparing translations ever actually working well.
Of course, the article doesn't mention anything about Japanese...
Anyone remember that IBM commercial of the businessman sitting on a bench in a plaza feeding the pigeons. At the beginning of the commercial, it looked like he was talking to himself and he gets more and more excited, finally jumping up and down shouting "YES!!" and all of the birds fly off. The idea was that he was watching his stock take off in realtime over the internet on a display mounted on his glasses that projected into his eyes.
That is what I am waiting for. Something small, unobtrusive, and no less stylish than glasses. It would be really cool if you could have it be a semi-transparent overlay over the real world. It would be even more cool if a system could be implemented to feed you realtime info about what you are looking at.
But I get the feeling I'll get one of those for free with my Flying Car that I will have won as part of the opening sales promotion of Duke Nukem Forever.
OT, but I have always wanted to get a domain there. I imagine they are pretty strict about who can register.co.ck domains, as the obvious ones still seem to be open.
I personally would like to have "my.co.ck" which leads to wonderful sub-domains like "lick.my.co.ck", "suck.my.co.ck", "look-at.my.co.ck", "do-you-like.my.co.ck" etc.
Of course, then whoever gets "your.co.ck" can set up quite a nice rivalry.
Surprisingly, "hard", and "stiff" are still open, so I guess the Cook Islands don't have any companies on the net selling viagra. "large", "small", "big", "little" etc are also still open, which means the p3ni5 3nl4rg3m3n7 companies haven't gotten there yet either...
Just out of serious, off-topic curiosity, does anyone know what kind of guidelines need to be followed to get a.co.ck domain?
Why would anyone want to become member of a small randomly put together community by invitations? What do they discuss?
Well...I am a member of Mixi.jp, a Japanese inivitation-only social networking site. It is a bit exclusive in that you really can't use the site unless you can read Japanese, but perhaps that keeps a lot of would-be trolls out (though there are plenty of Japanese trolls out there).
Anyway, it seems to me like a successful version of what Orkut should be. I use it almost religiously and it works well because the majority of users are actually rather close to each other (few hours by train at the most in most cases) so we can actually meet in real life. My list of friends is a little small (32 at the moment) but I have met all but 3 of those people IRL. Of those three, one lives in the US, one lives in Hokkkaido (I'm in Tokyo) and the other...well, timing just hasn't worked out yet.
Anyway, the point of my post is that in some cases, these "small randomly put together communities" work quite well and can be an excellent supplement to IRL (note: I did NOT say replacement). I've gotten some good snowboarding buddies, some good music buddies, some good photography buddies, etc. Hell, I even met a really attractive girl that will hopefully be my next girlfriend (2 months without getting any is starting to drive me crazy...broke up last december;_; )
So, these sites can work. I think Orkut's problem is that it is just too big and unfocused.
It's okay if psychotic dictators get The Bomb just as long as democracy isn't imposed on anyone else.
Umm, that is a pretty deep thing to infer from my post. I don't believe that I mentioned anything regarding democracy in my original post.
Look at the world today and tell me which sovereign nations are invading other sovereign nations. I count one, but then again I'm not completely up on current events of a lot of the smaller nations in the world. My arguments have nothing to do with political systems and everything to do with stopping an aggressive foreign invader.
I'm not saying I want the US government to educate the US children. There is no need for them to dictate what is taught, how it is taught, etc.
I'm just saying that it would be nice if they threw a bit more money towards schools and less towards the war machine.
It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: "It will be a fine day in the US when schools get the funding they need and the Air Force will have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Yes, it is a deadly game of chicken, but it could work to keep a certain country from invading.
Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.
I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.
There was an article on Fark the other day (sorry, can't find the link...someone help me out) about a blind artist who could draw objects that were described to him. When told to draw from a different perspective, he could imagine it and do it.
When hooked up to sensors it was realized that the same parts of his brain were stimulated that us sighted folks use to remember things we have seen. So, I imagine that the signals are not FOREIGN to the brain and there isn't much REORGANIZing going on. The "circuitry" is there and can still be used even without the constant stimuli.
Very impressive article. Perhaps helps to explain people can regain some sight with these improvements. Perhaps all one has to do is get a signal there and the brain will take care of the rest.
I though all of the missing matter was actually the the packaging in the boxes used to ship the scientists their equipment that they use to search for missing matter...
but then again, some crazy girl with a bird hit me over the head with a rock, so I'm not thinking very clearly...
It was due to the fact that programmers understood the hardware's limitations and made do with what they had. Regardless of whos.. Be it a Mac, an apple IIGS, atari ST.. whatever...
I agree. There are many times when I think about some of the things that I do on computers today, and sometimes it seems like they aren't much faster than years ago...of course, now with the power and the multi-tasking I can do many more things at the same time...
but think about it. Back in the 80s and early-mid 90s, a lot of things on computers were VERY hardware limited and developers had to program efficiently to get things to run with some semblence (sp?) of speed. IANADeveloper, but it seems to me that that kind of efficiency has for the most part disappeared (and this is not a knock on developers...you guys are doing amazing things!).
I guess I just imagine about what it would be like if the same kind of efficiency that was used to make things run quickly on an 040 was used to make things run on a G4 or G5 today and it blows my mind.
Of course, there is a lot that I don't understand about developing and the hardware has also advanced so much that programming for efficiency due to hardware limitations like developers had to back in the day probably doesn't apply as much any more.
I caught this link yesterday on the Mac.Ach. on the ArsTechnica forums, and they had a.torrent link on the page itself (though that was for an older version of the video which was missing the last 10 minutes), but it seems to have disappeared. Either that or they haven't made a torrent for the new file...
Anyway, think about it people. This video was made in 1992!!! It is amazing how advanced NeXT was at that time. I mean, that machine is what?...a 68030? 040? 33MHz? Amazing! A lot of the technologies that we take for granted in MacOS X were already around at the time, as well as some other things (such as OpenDoc) which were not introduced in other systems for years and have yet to be re-implemented.
Truly an impressive OS.
Oh, and it is great to hear Steve Jobs say "BOOOM!" during his demos.;)
Ummm...I just checked this out on some messages that I sent (using AirPort).
The ethernet address WAS broadcast in the Message-ID header. However, that was the hardware ethernet MAC address, and NOT the Airport card MAC address.
Can anyone else confirm that this is the case? If it is, then does this have anything with keeping WEP-based wireless networks secure?
During an investigation, government agents downloaded 35 copyright works worth $4820.66 from Chicoine's site and more than 70 copyright works worth $20,648.63 from Trowbridge's site, the DOJ says.
IAdefinitelyNAL, but for some reason I was under the impression that evidence gathered through illegal means (in this case copyright infringement) could not be used...
Just out of curiosity, which, if any, extensions do those nightlies break?
I'm currently using Adblock, downTHEMall, Right Encoding, Tabbrowser Preferences, Wikipedia, Farkit, Rot13 Encoder/Decoder, and Download Manager Tweak. I can live without a few of them, but Adblock, Farkit, and Tabbrowser Preferences are fairly essential to my browsing habits.
I don't know abour Marathon, it may be superb. I never played it, but who remembers it now? everybody remembers Doom, and most have cleared it.
I think you would be very hard pressed to find a longtime Mac user who doesn't remember the Marathon trilogy.
Personally I always thought Marathon felt more polished than Doom simply because it had the ability to look up and down and you actually had to aim your weapons (without a crosshair) to hit things above and below you. In doom, you only had to point in their general direction (for example with the rocket launcher). Much better game-play IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
37?!?!
"At the same time?"
---snip---
"try not to suck any dick on the way to the parking lot!"
"Hey! Come back here!"
ditto that.
Seriously, doesn't anyone even care anymore that freedom of speech is supposed to be an inalienable human right?
Given some form of A.I. with true ability to think creatively, I think good, accurate translations certainly are possible.
One thing I question is, what exactly is a correct translation? I often see Japanese->English and English->Japanese translations, and quite often, though the translations are arguably correct, they are not how I would have said things, and sometimes I even feel that the translations are wrong because even though the words and phrasing are correct they are missing the nuances/emotions/etc. of the situation.I don't see how pattern recognition software, no matter how smart, can translate accurately, unless the ability to think creatively is also included (i.e. what I personally think of as true A.I.).
I'm not saying this software is a bad idea, and for some languages it may even be able to work very well...but for others (such as Japanese in my experience) which are so completely different not only in words and grammar but in thinking style...well, I think at best we will get a less "engrish"y version of babelfish.
Of course, this is all my humble opinion and I am most certainly not an expert on linguistics or A.I.
As a person who speaks both English and Japanese, I can't believe that anyone could ever come up with an algorithm to translate between these languages. So much of it is context and nuance based, not to mention that there are words in the languages that simply do not exist in the other language so the only way to really understand it and make an attempt to translate is to think in the language.
Given the number of ways to translate even single words and phrases between Japanese and English, I can't imagine any algorithm derived from comparing translations ever actually working well.
Of course, the article doesn't mention anything about Japanese...
That is what I am waiting for. Something small, unobtrusive, and no less stylish than glasses. It would be really cool if you could have it be a semi-transparent overlay over the real world. It would be even more cool if a system could be implemented to feed you realtime info about what you are looking at.
But I get the feeling I'll get one of those for free with my Flying Car that I will have won as part of the opening sales promotion of Duke Nukem Forever.
I personally would like to have "my.co.ck" which leads to wonderful sub-domains like "lick.my.co.ck", "suck.my.co.ck", "look-at.my.co.ck", "do-you-like.my.co.ck" etc.
Of course, then whoever gets "your.co.ck" can set up quite a nice rivalry.
Surprisingly, "hard", and "stiff" are still open, so I guess the Cook Islands don't have any companies on the net selling viagra. "large", "small", "big", "little" etc are also still open, which means the p3ni5 3nl4rg3m3n7 companies haven't gotten there yet either...
Just out of serious, off-topic curiosity, does anyone know what kind of guidelines need to be followed to get a .co.ck domain?
;p
Anyway, it seems to me like a successful version of what Orkut should be. I use it almost religiously and it works well because the majority of users are actually rather close to each other (few hours by train at the most in most cases) so we can actually meet in real life. My list of friends is a little small (32 at the moment) but I have met all but 3 of those people IRL. Of those three, one lives in the US, one lives in Hokkkaido (I'm in Tokyo) and the other...well, timing just hasn't worked out yet.
Anyway, the point of my post is that in some cases, these "small randomly put together communities" work quite well and can be an excellent supplement to IRL (note: I did NOT say replacement). I've gotten some good snowboarding buddies, some good music buddies, some good photography buddies, etc. Hell, I even met a really attractive girl that will hopefully be my next girlfriend (2 months without getting any is starting to drive me crazy...broke up last december ;_; )
So, these sites can work. I think Orkut's problem is that it is just too big and unfocused.
Look at the world today and tell me which sovereign nations are invading other sovereign nations. I count one, but then again I'm not completely up on current events of a lot of the smaller nations in the world. My arguments have nothing to do with political systems and everything to do with stopping an aggressive foreign invader.
I'm just saying that it would be nice if they threw a bit more money towards schools and less towards the war machine.
It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw: "It will be a fine day in the US when schools get the funding they need and the Air Force will have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."
Perhaps it isn't actually Mutually Assured Destruction, but you have to admit, pointing those nukes at Seoul and Tokyo and then saying "Hey US, stay the F**K out of my country or I push the button!" could be rather persuasive.
I can't say I agree with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but perhaps it will keep the US from invading another country.
Call, me crazy, but I think that educating people is more important and better for humanity than killing others...
When hooked up to sensors it was realized that the same parts of his brain were stimulated that us sighted folks use to remember things we have seen. So, I imagine that the signals are not FOREIGN to the brain and there isn't much REORGANIZing going on. The "circuitry" is there and can still be used even without the constant stimuli.
Very impressive article. Perhaps helps to explain people can regain some sight with these improvements. Perhaps all one has to do is get a signal there and the brain will take care of the rest.
a.) the last time I checked, 9+1+1+1+1 = ...wait for it... 13
b.) these are only for machines running Windows.
Therefore, 13 new Windows security vulnerabilities.
but then again, some crazy girl with a bird hit me over the head with a rock, so I'm not thinking very clearly...
but think about it. Back in the 80s and early-mid 90s, a lot of things on computers were VERY hardware limited and developers had to program efficiently to get things to run with some semblence (sp?) of speed. IANADeveloper, but it seems to me that that kind of efficiency has for the most part disappeared (and this is not a knock on developers...you guys are doing amazing things!).
I guess I just imagine about what it would be like if the same kind of efficiency that was used to make things run quickly on an 040 was used to make things run on a G4 or G5 today and it blows my mind.
Of course, there is a lot that I don't understand about developing and the hardware has also advanced so much that programming for efficiency due to hardware limitations like developers had to back in the day probably doesn't apply as much any more.
thoughts?
Anyway, think about it people. This video was made in 1992!!! It is amazing how advanced NeXT was at that time. I mean, that machine is what?...a 68030? 040? 33MHz? Amazing! A lot of the technologies that we take for granted in MacOS X were already around at the time, as well as some other things (such as OpenDoc) which were not introduced in other systems for years and have yet to be re-implemented.
Truly an impressive OS.
Oh, and it is great to hear Steve Jobs say "BOOOM!" during his demos. ;)
*sigh* when will those scientists ever learn? ;)
The ethernet address WAS broadcast in the Message-ID header. However, that was the hardware ethernet MAC address, and NOT the Airport card MAC address.
Can anyone else confirm that this is the case? If it is, then does this have anything with keeping WEP-based wireless networks secure?
Can anyone clarify US law on that matter?
I'll give it a shot. Thanks for the advice.
I'm currently using Adblock, downTHEMall, Right Encoding, Tabbrowser Preferences, Wikipedia, Farkit, Rot13 Encoder/Decoder, and Download Manager Tweak. I can live without a few of them, but Adblock, Farkit, and Tabbrowser Preferences are fairly essential to my browsing habits.
any ideas?
Sarge: Son did you just shoot yourself in the foot?
Simmons: Yeah...I do that now sometimes. I don't really know why.
Sarge: I'm sure it's user error.
- Red vs. Blue Season 2, Episode 38.
Personally I always thought Marathon felt more polished than Doom simply because it had the ability to look up and down and you actually had to aim your weapons (without a crosshair) to hit things above and below you. In doom, you only had to point in their general direction (for example with the rocket launcher). Much better game-play IMHO.