> A number of people in the AI field consider the
> Loebner test a joke. It has as much to do with
> true AI, as Battlebots has to do with hard-core
> robotics.
> Sure, the person might think they know the playing style of the computer,
Actually, they do. They load up a computer with every known sequence of moves, endgames, startgames, weighted deep-plunge searches, etc. but it basically still comes down to a brute force search. Kasparov knew this and was able to use the "horizon effect" to his advantage to beat the machine. He was still convinced he could beat it in a rematch.
>> I think that artificial intelligence wpould be
>> best measured with an understanding of emotion
>> and ethics, so psychological and ethical
>> examinations,
>
> So if you get to administer a Turing test, ask
> questions about emotion and ethics, and even make
> the contestants pass psychological and ethical
> examinations by typing the questions.
"Congratulations, Mr. Person-behind-the-screen! You passed the Ethical Turing Test! You are a complete bullshitter and are suited for life in the decadent "political" class, bossing around others all the while receiving their "praise" as they think you their "servant".
> but rather that you can not distinguish which of
> two candidates is the computer [and which is
> the human.]
Questioner. How does a TV work?
"Person" 1:A cathode projects an electron beam that is dragged by magnets across a screen of phosphors of the three primary colors. The intensity of the beam is varied with a timed input signal, and non-phosphor areas are protected by a shadow mask or, on modern flat display tubes, a vertical aperture grille.
> The idea that the Universal Turing Machine models
> all that is computable by any machine is known as
> "Church's Thesis,"
That interests me even more than the Turing Machine itself. It is that there is this concept of a "most powerful" computational device that can, at most, perform a finite number of calculations in a finite period of time, and that the Turing Machine meets this definition.
It's a Thesis, not a Theory, because it hasn't been proven or disproven. No one has yet found something more powerful. Equally powerful, yes, in that an emulator for each can be written in the other, but not more.
> And that one woman astronaught that said Tito gave
> a bad name to astronaughts because he went there
> as a tourist needs to be shot in the head and
> tossed into a wood chipper.
The bullet will probably jam the wood chipper.
This "haves" and "have-nots" of space access is idiotic; how dare government-sponsored people shit all over the free capitalist power that enables, literally, their Endeavors.
They did win the battle of the Big Government People's Show Projects, didn't they?
> The first woman in space was Russian way back in
> early 1960's, NASA has always been vague as to
> why it took 20 years more it to allow a woman in
> space, methinks macho military elitism felt
> threatened.
So yanking a woman off an assembly line (so to speak) somewhere, launching her, shoving her in front of cameras, putting her back on the assembly line, and getting back to 30 years of a mens' only club in a dictatorship advances feminism just how?
> Where do you think these scientists end up ?
> If it they felt we do not appreciate their
> contribution here is US they would never come
> here.
Of course, by "appreciate their contribution", read $$$. $$$ that they cannot get in poverty-stricken and/or socialist countries where the industry they work in is heavily, if not completely, government-owned.
Good riddence to the motherland; let them be free and they vote with their shoes.
> Don't forget that almost all American modules are
> made by the Russians. That's because they know
> how to design, assemble and lauch them.
No, that's because we're paying for their aerospace industry to have something to do so they don't go making missles or working for the black market. It also has the effect (an even more important reason) of making Russia look "with it" in the eyes of their own population in an attempt to eviscerate nationalistic nostalgia for the "good old days", since, to the common buffoon, being a tough country on the international scene is much more important than being free. It's also easier for political thugs to redirect the hoi polloi's rage against external people, i.e., not the thugs themselves.
> When that didn't work, they used tanks to pump his
> house full of flammible tear-gas then fired
> thermite grenades into the house until it exploded.
It's been well established (video and audio tape) that they burned themselves down.
Anyway, you'd think they couldn't keep magic a secret with a school with dozens of kids in it, century after century? Militarize the magic, put it to work for Nasa, bah, what kind of adults let kids go on "adventures"?
And once they've read it once, it poofs, and they can't get it back because the Earth has been destroyed. Now who's laughing over not having illegal decryption software? Huh? Huh?
Unless, of course, they're putting the mice in a little centrifuge, and I'd bet the mice would get very screwed up being spun around for weeks, vastly overpowering any gains you might get from knowledge of light weight, like trying to measure a pea under a mattress while an elephant bounces up and down right next to you.
> i.e. any amount of data can be "sent" using only
> two bits of information (the start and stop bit).
Do you really need the stop bit? You know it's right there...
And the start bit? Not really needed either, so no transmission need actually occur! Just have the receiver decode both 0 and 1 and see which one looks like a ripped Matrix DVD.
Slashdot Mirror
> A number of people in the AI field consider the
> Loebner test a joke. It has as much to do with
> true AI, as Battlebots has to do with hard-core
> robotics.
Small moves, Ellie. Small moves.
> Sure, the person might think they know the playing style of the computer,
Actually, they do. They load up a computer with every known sequence of moves, endgames, startgames, weighted deep-plunge searches, etc. but it basically still comes down to a brute force search. Kasparov knew this and was able to use the "horizon effect" to his advantage to beat the machine. He was still convinced he could beat it in a rematch.
>> I think that artificial intelligence wpould be
>> best measured with an understanding of emotion
>> and ethics, so psychological and ethical
>> examinations,
>
> So if you get to administer a Turing test, ask
> questions about emotion and ethics, and even make
> the contestants pass psychological and ethical
> examinations by typing the questions.
"Congratulations, Mr. Person-behind-the-screen! You passed the Ethical Turing Test! You are a complete bullshitter and are suited for life in the decadent "political" class, bossing around others all the while receiving their "praise" as they think you their "servant".
> but rather that you can not distinguish which of
> two candidates is the computer [and which is
> the human.]
Questioner. How does a TV work?
"Person" 1:A cathode projects an electron beam that is dragged by magnets across a screen of phosphors of the three primary colors. The intensity of the beam is varied with a timed input signal, and non-phosphor areas are protected by a shadow mask or, on modern flat display tubes, a vertical aperture grille.
"Person" 2: I don't know.
Questioner. Hmm, that was easy.
> Reject religion, and unreasoning faith.
> Christianity, Islam and Hiduism still have
> footholds in America
As does socialism.
> ...now that it has passed the Turing test... vote
> on the next elections!
Precinct Worker #1: Ok, Process #893547992 has voted.
Worker #2: Hey! That process was kill -9'd six years ago. Fraud!
Remember folks: Vote early, vote millions of times a second!
> The idea that the Universal Turing Machine models
> all that is computable by any machine is known as
> "Church's Thesis,"
That interests me even more than the Turing Machine itself. It is that there is this concept of a "most powerful" computational device that can, at most, perform a finite number of calculations in a finite period of time, and that the Turing Machine meets this definition.
It's a Thesis, not a Theory, because it hasn't been proven or disproven. No one has yet found something more powerful. Equally powerful, yes, in that an emulator for each can be written in the other, but not more.
> The first man in space was Russian.
Yes, but the first free man was US, and the first sentient individual, free or otherwise...
...wait for it...
...months of waiting...
...was me!
> And that one woman astronaught that said Tito gave
> a bad name to astronaughts because he went there
> as a tourist needs to be shot in the head and
> tossed into a wood chipper.
The bullet will probably jam the wood chipper.
This "haves" and "have-nots" of space access is idiotic; how dare government-sponsored people shit all over the free capitalist power that enables, literally, their Endeavors.
Oh, hell.
Let's just build a space station with a giant "laser" beam on it, like we always do.
> The first man in space was Russian.
They did win the battle of the Big Government People's Show Projects, didn't they?
> The first woman in space was Russian way back in
> early 1960's, NASA has always been vague as to
> why it took 20 years more it to allow a woman in
> space, methinks macho military elitism felt
> threatened.
So yanking a woman off an assembly line (so to speak) somewhere, launching her, shoving her in front of cameras, putting her back on the assembly line, and getting back to 30 years of a mens' only club in a dictatorship advances feminism just how?
So is all of Central America, Cuba, and Hispantildeola for that matter.
> Where do you think these scientists end up ?
> If it they felt we do not appreciate their
> contribution here is US they would never come
> here.
Of course, by "appreciate their contribution", read $$$. $$$ that they cannot get in poverty-stricken and/or socialist countries where the industry they work in is heavily, if not completely, government-owned.
Good riddence to the motherland; let them be free and they vote with their shoes.
> Don't forget that almost all American modules are
> made by the Russians. That's because they know
> how to design, assemble and lauch them.
No, that's because we're paying for their aerospace industry to have something to do so they don't go making missles or working for the black market. It also has the effect (an even more important reason) of making Russia look "with it" in the eyes of their own population in an attempt to eviscerate nationalistic nostalgia for the "good old days", since, to the common buffoon, being a tough country on the international scene is much more important than being free. It's also easier for political thugs to redirect the hoi polloi's rage against external people, i.e., not the thugs themselves.
> When that didn't work, they used tanks to pump his
> house full of flammible tear-gas then fired
> thermite grenades into the house until it exploded.
It's been well established (video and audio tape) that they burned themselves down.
Anyway, you'd think they couldn't keep magic a secret with a school with dozens of kids in it, century after century? Militarize the magic, put it to work for Nasa, bah, what kind of adults let kids go on "adventures"?
But what if they use an artificial gravity generator?
Then they'd be doubling the Mars gravity if they did what you say!
Mmmm, heated Velveeta in a weightless environment...
Let's just make sure they don't crash-land on that terrible Planet of the Mice.
Homre: Wait a minute! Statue of Liberty? That was our planet. Damn you! Damn you all to hell!
And once they've read it once, it poofs, and they can't get it back because the Earth has been destroyed. Now who's laughing over not having illegal decryption software? Huh? Huh?
Unless, of course, they're putting the mice in a little centrifuge, and I'd bet the mice would get very screwed up being spun around for weeks, vastly overpowering any gains you might get from knowledge of light weight, like trying to measure a pea under a mattress while an elephant bounces up and down right next to you.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you're in orbit, your gravity is offset exactly by your centrifugal force of your orbit. You are weightless.
> I feel sorry for John Tatoulis, he's been duped
> into being the front man on a $25m scam, he's
> probably "not very technical"
And if it's true, well, Australia has some pretty strict liability laws...
j/k, of course. They're all sacks of shit.
> i.e. any amount of data can be "sent" using only
> two bits of information (the start and stop bit).
Do you really need the stop bit? You know it's right there...
And the start bit? Not really needed either, so no transmission need actually occur! Just have the receiver decode both 0 and 1 and see which one looks like a ripped Matrix DVD.
Actually, his friend is pretty clever.
It's reality that's stupidly defined.
As long as each pixel was 2 bits or more in depth...