A panel of human judges could not tell the difference between a baby pounding keys o a keyboard and an algorithm simulating a baby pounding keys on a keyboard./s
The way to pass the Turing test is not to simulate humans when they are behaving the least like humans and tricking other humans. The spirit of the Turing Test is to create the conditions where it is the hardest to simulate other humans, and then see if a computer can pass.
Poems are not interactive. It is not hard for a computer to construct grammatically correct language. Hell it could just copy existing poems and perfectly simulate a human plagiarist.
The whole idea of the Turing test is that many things seem like they could be artifacts of thought, but all the artifacts of trickery break down when forced to be interactive enough. You might might be tricked into thinking a mannequin is a beautiful woman, until you try to interact with her.
Finite State Machine <--> Regular Language
Pushdown Automaton <--> Context Free Language
Linear Bounded Automaton <--> Context sensitive Language
Turing Machine <--> Recursively Enumerable Language
Ironically, in a discussion about programming languages, I failed to adhere to gramatically correct html.
CS is about a lot of things (algorithms being one important one). Another aspect of CS is the study of computer languages which is actually very similar to linguistics (there is a lot of crossover between the 2 fields). In computer science there is actually a mapping between the power of different kinds of computers and the types of languages they can process.
Finite State Machines Regular Language
Pushdown Automaton Context Free Language
Linear Bounded Automaton Context sensitive Language
Turing Machine Recursively Enumerable Language
A lot of people think computer science and language are about as opposite as fields can get, but they are not because of the existence of programming languages.
The process of using a programming language (to implement an algorithm) involves making grammatically correct statements (syntax) to convey meaning (semantics) to a machine so it can do what you ask of it.
Real language is analogous in that you are learning to use a grammar to convey meaning to other humans. Maybe you want to tell another person how to build a canoe. Part of that process is knowing how to build a canoe, and part of that process is translating your knowledge into English sentences for another person to understand.
If you want to implement an algorithm, part of that process is knowing the algorithm, and part of it is translating that algorithm into a language that a machine can understand.
In this respect an algorithms expert is like a professional canoe builder and a programming language expert is like an English teacher. If you are both, maybe you can write a really good book about canoe building, or actually design some good software.
I don't think anything you learn in school is really enough to make you truly useful. You take math all the way from K-12 and then in college, and then you get out of school and forget everything except maybe elementary school arithmetic.
I think the goal is that *some* people who are forced to become minimally competent in any subject in school are going to find they are actually interested in those subjects, and pursue them beyond school and become experts.
So in that sense I can see the point of forcing everyone to take at least a little bit of foreign language *and* a little bit of programming, just in case that's the thing that a student finds they love.
I did not like programming when I first learned it. It took like 3 years of being stuck doing it before I really started to enjoy doing it.
I do agree that public laws are a lot easier to enforce than secret laws. But it's also easier to enforce public warrants than secret warrants (as evidenced by the existence of warrant canaries).
I don't know how actual NSLs work, but I could imagine a world in which you are not allowed to tell your lawyer about an NSL without violating the law. Or perhaps a world where a special government lawyer is provided to you to answer any questions you may have about the NSL that you are not allowed to tell anyone about.
We already have systems like this. There are different levels of information classification (e.g. secret, top secret, those we have never heard about, etc), you can not ask lawyers about the legality of information in top secret documents unless they have a top secret clearance and a need to know about that information specifically. The top secret clearances are given out by the government.
The government already has the ability to prevent people from giving information to other people.
Now I don't think the government could simply send only Larry and Sergey an NSL and expect anything meaningful to happen at google. They would probably have to get some number of people involved to do it. I don't know how cloak and dagger the actual process is, but I know our government does do some pretty crazy shit (due to illegal information leaks) when it comes to national security.
Unless you mean to suggest that "they" have forced every lawyer in the US to lie to the rest of us, you've missed my point - Those lawyers not under order to lie would call BS on the EFF's claims.
If you recall I said:
I am not suggesting we actually are forced to lie
That said, yes, I will grant that if literally everyone had to lie, the results would look indistinguishable. Doesn't make it a very good conspiracy, though, if it includes everyone.:)
Not *everyone*, just everyone that received warrants.
What you seem to be arguing is that "they" can't force us to lie. (i.e. the hotshot lawyers fresh out of college would not be forced to lie).
I am not suggesting we actually are forced to lie (because I think that would be extremely difficult). All I am saying is that *if* we could be forced to lie, then the result would be the same.
A person not forced to lie would say: "I am not forced to lie"
A person forced to lie would say: "I am not forced to lie"
(only the cops, judges, politicians and various TLAs can lie. they can't force *us* to lie.... )
Although... if they *could* force us to lie, then they they could just be forcing people at the EFF and canary websites to lie about not being able to force them to lie.
Whether they could force us to lie or not, we would be presented with the information that they cannot force us to lie.
If someone says "They can force us to lie." That statement can only be true if "they" allowed that someone to say it (i.e. because they could have forced that person to lie about that statement).
The problem with English is not that it changes. The problem with English is that it changes via natural selection rather than through conscious decision. A lot of things in English don't make any sense. But rather than correcting these things, we simply add to the list of horrible things by allowing English to "evolve". It's time for some genetic engineering.
For example the following sentence:
He yelled, "Hurry up."
is grammatically correct in that it puts the punctuation in the quote according to the proper rules of English.
This however is ambiguous, because we don;t know whether the period is part of the actual quote or not.
Something like this
He yelled "Hurry up.".
Might seem dumb at first. We are not used to it, but it removes ambiguity and preserves encapsulation. We have a sentence of the form "He yelled X." which is a fully formed sentence where X is a quote (which happens to be comprised of another fully formed sentence).
This creates very simple language production rules:
The US tried that with Saddam, we ended up with ISIS.
This implies the situations are identical, which they aren't. It also implies the false dichotomy, that there are only 2 options (doing what we did in Iraq, or whatever gradual strategy is the one in question).
I wasn't implying that I know the correct thing to do in Turkey. I am questioning circletimessquare's logic and his claim to know the correct thing to do.
A better question is, why is are the internal affairs of Turkey any of your damn business?
Why is this a better question? We aren't discussing the internal affairs of Turkey. We are talking about whether a Western company should censor itself before allowing it's service to be consumed in Turkey. It's an internal Facebook affair if anything. Whether Turkey actually wants to consume it is up to them, but they don't have the authority to tell Facebook what or what not to publish.
I think what Facebook decides it wants to publish in Turkey or anywhere else is it's own business even if it takes place in Turkey.
You're point was just wrong. And I actually explained *why* your point is wrong. Simply reasserting your point doesn't count as supporting evidence for your point.
I don't think it is immoral to play a corrupt game. I think it is immoral to knowingly cause harm to people. If playing an immoral game is known not to harm people more than not playing it, then it's fine.
It is hard to know what the true results of your actions will be. Many well intentioned actions have bad results, and many malintentioned actions can actually have good results.
I don't begrudge anybody who honestly does not have any idea what the results of their actions will be.
The problem I see is when people or companies kind of know that what they are doing is harming people, but they rationalize what they are doing by claiming to know less than they do.
I suspect maybe Facebook executives might actually think that taking a stand for freedom of speech would be in the best interest of the Turkish people and the world if they didn't stand to benefit from not rocking the boat in Turkey.
Basically I am alleging the potential for Self-serving bias in this situation which I do think is immoral depending on how conscious it is:
I didn't redefine any words. I am just pointing out that some word combinations are inherently incoherent like "extreme moderation", which appears to be what you advocate.
You can't do *everything* in moderation. Because if you try, you have done moderation in the extreme (and hence not done *everything* (e.g. moderation) in moderation.
My larger point is that you accusing others of being "like the authoritarian Turkish government", because their views are "extreme", is ridiculous. Being extremely dedicated to freedom of speech does not make you any more like an authoritarian government than being extremely nice makes you like Hitler because Hitler was extremely evil (and being extremely nice and extremely evil are similar in that they are extremes).
You are the one who started the mental gymnastics. You just suck at them.
Well if you look at the usage of versions prior to 4.4 it is most of the Android userbase. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on how long but given that most people are still using earlier versions I think it's pretty clear there needs to be some support.
Right, but if every phone was upgraded to the version it is technically able to be upgraded to by the hardware vendors, then I doubt there would be very many phones still running android 4.3 (that people were still using).
I doubt it, most people would have no idea about vulnerabilities such as this or that there is a new version of Android for their phones. If it doesn't say "hey, here's an update" most people don't know or care.
I suppose this is true of PCs and windows updates as well, but there is enough consumer demand that Microsoft continues to release patches, even if most users don't care. I was envisioning a similar level of people caring in the android market to force good behavior on the part of vendors.
By insisting that Turkey can *only* be changed slowly and that compromise *always* wins, you are being absolutist, dogmatic and just as authoritarian as the Turkish government.
Why do you think in such black and white terms? That slow change is the only way that change can happen? Why is it that the Turkish government's authoritarianism can *only* be eroded gradually?
You know what also destroys mountains? Meteorites.
The facebook clone actually causes widesrpread public outrage at the loss of the real (and hypothetically principled) Facebook, and the Turkish government is overthrown and replaced with a secular democracy that forges a path for all other authoritarian islamic countries towards logic and reason and away from superstition.
No it's not black and white and nobody knows what's going to happen. The idea that facebook censoring itself in turkey is leading to the best possible outcome is not a fact.
you can't think of these nuanced complex issues in such blockheaded black-or-white "my way or the highway" rigid ways. that makes you something like turkey's authoritarianism actually
No it doesn't. Autonomy is different than authoritarianism. Saying "I will do what I believe in" is completely different than saying "I will force you to do to what I believe in".
Maybe it's the same qualitatively but I think it's different quantitatively. In many countries, bribes don't grant expedited service so much as lack of a bribe guarantees that a government official will actively hinder whatever you are trying to do. Which brings us to another point, that we don't typically tip government officials in the US (and if we do it's called bribery).
Don't get me wrong. Tipping sucks. But bribery is worse. And any country where bribery is a cultural norm is shittier because of it.
I'm not even saying that bribery is immoral. It may be the only way some government officials can be paid in certain countries. I'm saying that bribery is just a very bad system, and if your society relies on it, it's a sign that your society sucks.
The fact that our service industry relies on tipping is also (but less) regrettable.
Slashdot Mirror
A panel of human judges could not tell the difference between a baby pounding keys o a keyboard and an algorithm simulating a baby pounding keys on a keyboard. /s
The way to pass the Turing test is not to simulate humans when they are behaving the least like humans and tricking other humans. The spirit of the Turing Test is to create the conditions where it is the hardest to simulate other humans, and then see if a computer can pass.
Poems are not interactive. It is not hard for a computer to construct grammatically correct language. Hell it could just copy existing poems and perfectly simulate a human plagiarist.
The whole idea of the Turing test is that many things seem like they could be artifacts of thought, but all the artifacts of trickery break down when forced to be interactive enough. You might might be tricked into thinking a mannequin is a beautiful woman, until you try to interact with her.
html removed my arrows
Finite State Machine <--> Regular Language
Pushdown Automaton <--> Context Free Language
Linear Bounded Automaton <--> Context sensitive Language
Turing Machine <--> Recursively Enumerable Language
Ironically, in a discussion about programming languages, I failed to adhere to gramatically correct html.
Finite State Machines Regular Language
Pushdown Automaton Context Free Language
Linear Bounded Automaton Context sensitive Language
Turing Machine Recursively Enumerable Language
A lot of people think computer science and language are about as opposite as fields can get, but they are not because of the existence of programming languages.
The process of using a programming language (to implement an algorithm) involves making grammatically correct statements (syntax) to convey meaning (semantics) to a machine so it can do what you ask of it.
Real language is analogous in that you are learning to use a grammar to convey meaning to other humans. Maybe you want to tell another person how to build a canoe. Part of that process is knowing how to build a canoe, and part of that process is translating your knowledge into English sentences for another person to understand.
If you want to implement an algorithm, part of that process is knowing the algorithm, and part of it is translating that algorithm into a language that a machine can understand.
In this respect an algorithms expert is like a professional canoe builder and a programming language expert is like an English teacher. If you are both, maybe you can write a really good book about canoe building, or actually design some good software.
I don't think anything you learn in school is really enough to make you truly useful. You take math all the way from K-12 and then in college, and then you get out of school and forget everything except maybe elementary school arithmetic.
I think the goal is that *some* people who are forced to become minimally competent in any subject in school are going to find they are actually interested in those subjects, and pursue them beyond school and become experts.
So in that sense I can see the point of forcing everyone to take at least a little bit of foreign language *and* a little bit of programming, just in case that's the thing that a student finds they love.
I did not like programming when I first learned it. It took like 3 years of being stuck doing it before I really started to enjoy doing it.
I do agree that public laws are a lot easier to enforce than secret laws. But it's also easier to enforce public warrants than secret warrants (as evidenced by the existence of warrant canaries).
I don't know how actual NSLs work, but I could imagine a world in which you are not allowed to tell your lawyer about an NSL without violating the law. Or perhaps a world where a special government lawyer is provided to you to answer any questions you may have about the NSL that you are not allowed to tell anyone about.
We already have systems like this. There are different levels of information classification (e.g. secret, top secret, those we have never heard about, etc), you can not ask lawyers about the legality of information in top secret documents unless they have a top secret clearance and a need to know about that information specifically. The top secret clearances are given out by the government.
The government already has the ability to prevent people from giving information to other people.
Now I don't think the government could simply send only Larry and Sergey an NSL and expect anything meaningful to happen at google. They would probably have to get some number of people involved to do it. I don't know how cloak and dagger the actual process is, but I know our government does do some pretty crazy shit (due to illegal information leaks) when it comes to national security.
So you are asking why doesn't some hungry young JD reveal the secret law that allows the government to compel people to lie?
I'm a pilot :)
Unless you mean to suggest that "they" have forced every lawyer in the US to lie to the rest of us, you've missed my point - Those lawyers not under order to lie would call BS on the EFF's claims.
If you recall I said:
I am not suggesting we actually are forced to lie
That said, yes, I will grant that if literally everyone had to lie, the results would look indistinguishable. Doesn't make it a very good conspiracy, though, if it includes everyone. :)
Not *everyone*, just everyone that received warrants.
What you seem to be arguing is that "they" can't force us to lie. (i.e. the hotshot lawyers fresh out of college would not be forced to lie).
I am not suggesting we actually are forced to lie (because I think that would be extremely difficult). All I am saying is that *if* we could be forced to lie, then the result would be the same.
A person not forced to lie would say: "I am not forced to lie"
A person forced to lie would say: "I am not forced to lie"
(only the cops, judges, politicians and various TLAs can lie. they can't force *us* to lie. ... )
Although... if they *could* force us to lie, then they they could just be forcing people at the EFF and canary websites to lie about not being able to force them to lie.
Whether they could force us to lie or not, we would be presented with the information that they cannot force us to lie.
If someone says "They can force us to lie." That statement can only be true if "they" allowed that someone to say it (i.e. because they could have forced that person to lie about that statement).
The problem with English is not that it changes. The problem with English is that it changes via natural selection rather than through conscious decision. A lot of things in English don't make any sense. But rather than correcting these things, we simply add to the list of horrible things by allowing English to "evolve". It's time for some genetic engineering.
For example the following sentence:
He yelled, "Hurry up."
is grammatically correct in that it puts the punctuation in the quote according to the proper rules of English.
This however is ambiguous, because we don;t know whether the period is part of the actual quote or not.
Something like this
He yelled "Hurry up.".
Might seem dumb at first. We are not used to it, but it removes ambiguity and preserves encapsulation. We have a sentence of the form "He yelled X." which is a fully formed sentence where X is a quote (which happens to be comprised of another fully formed sentence).
This creates very simple language production rules:
sentence -> subject verb object punctuation
object -> quote or any other objecty thing
quote -> "sentence"
I don't find ants to be pathetic. They are just ants doing ant things. Predictable != pathetic.
As I said, you have nothing (I guess except your retard laughing).
The US tried that with Saddam, we ended up with ISIS.
This implies the situations are identical, which they aren't. It also implies the false dichotomy, that there are only 2 options (doing what we did in Iraq, or whatever gradual strategy is the one in question).
I wasn't implying that I know the correct thing to do in Turkey. I am questioning circletimessquare's logic and his claim to know the correct thing to do.
A better question is, why is are the internal affairs of Turkey any of your damn business?
Why is this a better question? We aren't discussing the internal affairs of Turkey. We are talking about whether a Western company should censor itself before allowing it's service to be consumed in Turkey. It's an internal Facebook affair if anything. Whether Turkey actually wants to consume it is up to them, but they don't have the authority to tell Facebook what or what not to publish.
I think what Facebook decides it wants to publish in Turkey or anywhere else is it's own business even if it takes place in Turkey.
You're point was just wrong. And I actually explained *why* your point is wrong. Simply reasserting your point doesn't count as supporting evidence for your point.
I don't think it is immoral to play a corrupt game. I think it is immoral to knowingly cause harm to people. If playing an immoral game is known not to harm people more than not playing it, then it's fine.
It is hard to know what the true results of your actions will be. Many well intentioned actions have bad results, and many malintentioned actions can actually have good results.
I don't begrudge anybody who honestly does not have any idea what the results of their actions will be.
The problem I see is when people or companies kind of know that what they are doing is harming people, but they rationalize what they are doing by claiming to know less than they do.
I suspect maybe Facebook executives might actually think that taking a stand for freedom of speech would be in the best interest of the Turkish people and the world if they didn't stand to benefit from not rocking the boat in Turkey.
Basically I am alleging the potential for Self-serving bias in this situation which I do think is immoral depending on how conscious it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
I didn't redefine any words. I am just pointing out that some word combinations are inherently incoherent like "extreme moderation", which appears to be what you advocate.
You can't do *everything* in moderation. Because if you try, you have done moderation in the extreme (and hence not done *everything* (e.g. moderation) in moderation.
My larger point is that you accusing others of being "like the authoritarian Turkish government", because their views are "extreme", is ridiculous. Being extremely dedicated to freedom of speech does not make you any more like an authoritarian government than being extremely nice makes you like Hitler because Hitler was extremely evil (and being extremely nice and extremely evil are similar in that they are extremes).
You are the one who started the mental gymnastics. You just suck at them.
Sometimes abstract concepts can be difficult for some people to understand.
Well if you look at the usage of versions prior to 4.4 it is most of the Android userbase. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule on how long but given that most people are still using earlier versions I think it's pretty clear there needs to be some support.
Right, but if every phone was upgraded to the version it is technically able to be upgraded to by the hardware vendors, then I doubt there would be very many phones still running android 4.3 (that people were still using).
I doubt it, most people would have no idea about vulnerabilities such as this or that there is a new version of Android for their phones. If it doesn't say "hey, here's an update" most people don't know or care.
I suppose this is true of PCs and windows updates as well, but there is enough consumer demand that Microsoft continues to release patches, even if most users don't care. I was envisioning a similar level of people caring in the android market to force good behavior on the part of vendors.
If you *only* ever consider the "middle way" as a viable strategy, then you are extremist in your view that the middle is the only way.
"You should ever be an absolutist" is an absolutist statement.
It's actually a reductio ad absurdum.
By insisting that Turkey can *only* be changed slowly and that compromise *always* wins, you are being absolutist, dogmatic and just as authoritarian as the Turkish government.
Why do you think in such black and white terms? That slow change is the only way that change can happen? Why is it that the Turkish government's authoritarianism can *only* be eroded gradually?
You know what also destroys mountains? Meteorites.
it's not that simple
The facebook clone actually causes widesrpread public outrage at the loss of the real (and hypothetically principled) Facebook, and the Turkish government is overthrown and replaced with a secular democracy that forges a path for all other authoritarian islamic countries towards logic and reason and away from superstition.
No it's not black and white and nobody knows what's going to happen. The idea that facebook censoring itself in turkey is leading to the best possible outcome is not a fact.
you can't think of these nuanced complex issues in such blockheaded black-or-white "my way or the highway" rigid ways. that makes you something like turkey's authoritarianism actually
No it doesn't. Autonomy is different than authoritarianism. Saying "I will do what I believe in" is completely different than saying "I will force you to do to what I believe in".
Maybe it's the same qualitatively but I think it's different quantitatively. In many countries, bribes don't grant expedited service so much as lack of a bribe guarantees that a government official will actively hinder whatever you are trying to do. Which brings us to another point, that we don't typically tip government officials in the US (and if we do it's called bribery).
Don't get me wrong. Tipping sucks. But bribery is worse. And any country where bribery is a cultural norm is shittier because of it.
I'm not even saying that bribery is immoral. It may be the only way some government officials can be paid in certain countries. I'm saying that bribery is just a very bad system, and if your society relies on it, it's a sign that your society sucks.
The fact that our service industry relies on tipping is also (but less) regrettable.