U - Universe W - We I(x) - x is intricate C(x) - x is complicated D(x,y) - x is designed by y
Fact 1: I(U) ^ C(U)
Fact 2: There Exists x D(x,W) ^ I(x) ^ C(x)
Conclusion 1: For All x there exists a y (I(x) ^ C(x)) -> D(x,y)
This does not follow because you can't universally introduce an idea when given something. This would be like saying "I can drive a car" "A car has wheels" so "Everything with wheels can be driven" (you might as well now say "Everything with wheels can be driven by god" but's that's too much)
If C#1 was true, C#2 would also be. But then #3 takes "There exists a designer" and replaces it with "god". Wait, I just discovered the loop hole. Just replace x in all "there exists an x" with "god". Your logic becomes infallible.
Would there be mutations, and if so, would there be any sort of selection force? You could have a random factor that would induce changes (mutations). As for a selection force, how about if it works. Bad mutations would mean the robot just wouldn't work. Maybe a good mutation would enable it to reproduce faster. There is nothing to 'kill' the robot, but the environment is the biggest predator for robots right now.
Come on. The tsunami was caused by terrosists detonating nuclear weapons deap under the ocean. They just haven't stepped up to claim responsibility yet. So that was man, not God. What you got now?
I'll see someone, but it takes me a long time to place the face (often I can't). After I do or if I hear their name, I'll remember where we met, what we were doing, yada yada...
I've only worked with these briefly, but there are 48 total RF connectors, granted the BNC are cheap, but I thought N & SMA go for $20 a piece. So wouldn't this also be an expensive, nerdy chess set?
Part of being a good programmer is a logical mindset. So most programmers are more logical and can memorize processes better than the average person.
I'm an engineer and I know a lot of lawyers. They can't learn the formulas/processes. I can't read 500 pages in three days and remember everything. Which one is really smarter?
It really bugs me that people have to be smarter than someone else instead of just accepting that everyone is different.
From the article: the budget will be somewhere between 250 grand and $5 million.
The original was shot pre-dawn, and most of the actors worked for free and then went straight to their day-jobs with little or no sleep.
"This time around we'll afford ourselves the luxury of nice 12-hour days," Smith said. "And people can get paid."
> How about you do it on a shoestring budget again? You know the studios will pick it up and they will be especially thrilled if they don't have to shell out millions to the pirates.
Do you want the studios to pick it up and make money when the actors don't? If the money he spends is for the actors, not the effects/background/production is there a problem?
What if these methods help athletes recover from an injury (tear, pull, etc), but as a side effect of the recovery they are stronger than they were before? Are they still eligible to compete? This could be like the Tommy John Surgery in baseball. Some of the pitchers are better than they ever were before surgery.
Justification of preserving digital rights
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 1
I'm in a distance learning class and our professor does not want his lectures to become available for the world to take and use. His intellectual property is the format and content of the class. I guess it's not freely downloaded because I have to pay tuition to get access to the files, but it's an example none-the-less.
Since programmers seem to be the biggest group here on slashdot you'd think scope wouldn't be such a problem.
>We are still learning C
Ya, for programming PICs & such
>Because of this... unemployed
Maybe if it's a CS degree, but what if it's an EE degree. They still teach fortran or something 'ancient' to MEs. I don't know why because it's outside my scope.
Coincidentally, I know live in Columbus. I was trying to say that I don't think it much to do with racial problems, and more from the fact that it's a crime ridden area. I've been getting right-to-know e-mails from UC (university of Cincinanti) and there were six armed robberies over the weekend just around campus. This is a couple miles away from the 'bad part' of town.
I guess there's nowhere in Columbus that I'm worried about driving through in the middle of the day. There are such places in Cincinnati.
Don't knock the cops. White cop kills black kid and it makes headline news. I don't know if the details make it out of the City but the kid ran into a dark ally, got caught in a dead end and started playing with his pants. This is in an area where after the riots were done there were 90 shooting incedents in 30 days with 30 deaths. The only reason I heard about that is because I was talking to a cop. That news didn't even make a splash inside the city. I realize there are worse places in the country, but I wouldn't exactly call it a safe neighborhood. If you knew everyone was packing I'd be nervous too.
How about we take a new approach to having students actually give a rat's ass about science or learning in general?
How about we figure out a way to make students care period. I'm in my senior year in college (EE) and only realized last year that it's about gaining knowledge and not the grades for the paper. I have a large number of friends who are intelligent but had no desire to learn & thus have done nothing since high school. If it wasn't for my natural ability I doubt if I would have made it as far as I have. I wish someone could have made me realize three years ago that I need to learn as much as possible, just because.
OK, I don't know HTML and I didn't preview. This is prettier.
The TT is still fully valid today.
OK I agree with that, but not from an AI standpoint. It's a philosophical debate. You really can't prove that a machine could ever, or never could pass the TT.
They work mostly by building enormous databases of statement-response pairs and doing minimal reasoning. Turing would have died laughing if he had known people would take this approach to passing the TT. Let me illustrate why the database idea is insufficient by itself: for a bot to pass the real TT, it would have to answer questions like "what is the integral of e^x dx". Remember that the interrogator is actively trying to find out if it is a human or a bot. The objection "but two humans in conversation wouldn't ask such question" is invalid, and this is precisely why the Loebner contest is stupid.
What if your database was large enough to know that e^x dx was e^x. If the computer could answer such questions would that be sufficent evidence to you that the machine was human. I think the reason the TT pisses off AI people is because of the need for this huge statement-response database. At that point the computer really isn't thinking, it's using a look-up table for answers. With a large enough database a computer could pass a TT without any intellegence at all.
The goal of AI is to make computers think and reason. To really pass the TT the computer would have to understand english gramatically and then assign meaning to each of the words and then use reason to relate them together. I don't believe anyone is working on this, but if that was the goal of the AI people they might not dislike the TT so much.
OK I agree with that, but not from an AI standpoint. It's a philosophical debate. You really can't prove that a machine could ever, or never could pass the TT.
They work mostly by building enormous databases of statement-response pairs and doing minimal reasoning. Turing would have died laughing if he had known people would take this approach to passing the TT. Let me illustrate why the database idea is insufficient by itself: for a bot to pass the real TT, it would have to answer questions like "what is the integral of e^x dx". Remember that the interrogator is actively trying to find out if it is a human or a bot. The objection "but two humans in conversation wouldn't ask such question" is invalid, and this is precisely why the Loebner contest is stupid.
What if your database was large enough to know that e^x dx was e^x. If the computer could answer such questions would that be sufficent evidence to you that the machine was human. I think the reason the TT pisses off AI people is because of the need for this huge statement-response database. At that point the computer really isn't thinking, it's using a look-up table for answers. With a large enough database a computer could pass a TT without any intellegence at all.
The goal of AI is to make computers think and reason. To really pass the TT the computer would have to understand english gramatically and then assign meaning to each of the words and then use reason to relate them together. I don't believe anyone is working on this, but if that was the goal of the AI people they might not dislike the TT so much.
Slashdot Mirror
For anyone who's taken first order logic
U - Universe
W - We
I(x) - x is intricate
C(x) - x is complicated
D(x,y) - x is designed by y
Fact 1:
I(U) ^ C(U)
Fact 2:
There Exists x
D(x,W) ^ I(x) ^ C(x)
Conclusion 1:
For All x there exists a y
(I(x) ^ C(x)) -> D(x,y)
This does not follow because you can't universally introduce an idea when given something. This would be like saying "I can drive a car" "A car has wheels" so "Everything with wheels can be driven" (you might as well now say "Everything with wheels can be driven by god" but's that's too much)
If C#1 was true, C#2 would also be. But then #3 takes "There exists a designer" and replaces it with "god". Wait, I just discovered the loop hole. Just replace x in all "there exists an x" with "god". Your logic becomes infallible.
Would there be mutations, and if so, would there be any sort of selection force?
You could have a random factor that would induce changes (mutations). As for a selection force, how about if it works. Bad mutations would mean the robot just wouldn't work. Maybe a good mutation would enable it to reproduce faster. There is nothing to 'kill' the robot, but the environment is the biggest predator for robots right now.
Not exactly the South, but I'm much more worried about the bible beaters 62 ft Jesus.
until they start using this technology for porn
They've already started
Finding Naked People
This semester when 3/1 three dubs voted, one sub voted.
So there are four people in your club? That's not a good sample set.
then having that work done automatically is self-defeating.
Ask Jeff Breidenbach how self-defeated he feels
Or, you can type the URL into google, then if it's wrong Google tells you and offers a better answer. This way you don't even have to be careful.
Come on. The tsunami was caused by terrosists detonating nuclear weapons deap under the ocean. They just haven't stepped up to claim responsibility yet. So that was man, not God. What you got now?
Don't you meen.
Hey, CHEEBUS? Is that YOU, Cheebus?
Or, my problem
I'll see someone, but it takes me a long time to place the face (often I can't). After I do or if I hear their name, I'll remember where we met, what we were doing, yada yada...
I've only worked with these briefly, but there are 48 total RF connectors, granted the BNC are cheap, but I thought N & SMA go for $20 a piece. So wouldn't this also be an expensive, nerdy chess set?
Part of being a good programmer is a logical mindset. So most programmers are more logical and can memorize processes better than the average person.
I'm an engineer and I know a lot of lawyers. They can't learn the formulas/processes. I can't read 500 pages in three days and remember everything. Which one is really smarter?
It really bugs me that people have to be smarter than someone else instead of just accepting that everyone is different.
From the article:
the budget will be somewhere between 250 grand and $5 million.
The original was shot pre-dawn, and most of the actors worked for free and then went straight to their day-jobs with little or no sleep.
"This time around we'll afford ourselves the luxury of nice 12-hour days," Smith said. "And people can get paid."
> How about you do it on a shoestring budget again? You know the studios will pick it up and they will be especially thrilled if they don't have to shell out millions to the pirates.
Do you want the studios to pick it up and make money when the actors don't? If the money he spends is for the actors, not the effects/background/production is there a problem?
What if these methods help athletes recover from an injury (tear, pull, etc), but as a side effect of the recovery they are stronger than they were before? Are they still eligible to compete?
This could be like the Tommy John Surgery in baseball. Some of the pitchers are better than they ever were before surgery.
I'm in a distance learning class and our professor does not want his lectures to become available for the world to take and use. His intellectual property is the format and content of the class. I guess it's not freely downloaded because I have to pay tuition to get access to the files, but it's an example none-the-less.
Since programmers seem to be the biggest group here on slashdot you'd think scope wouldn't be such a problem.
... unemployed
>We are still learning C
Ya, for programming PICs & such
>Because of this
Maybe if it's a CS degree, but what if it's an EE degree. They still teach fortran or something 'ancient' to MEs. I don't know why because it's outside my scope.
Coincidentally, I know live in Columbus. I was trying to say that I don't think it much to do with racial problems, and more from the fact that it's a crime ridden area. I've been getting right-to-know e-mails from UC (university of Cincinanti) and there were six armed robberies over the weekend just around campus. This is a couple miles away from the 'bad part' of town.
I guess there's nowhere in Columbus that I'm worried about driving through in the middle of the day. There are such places in Cincinnati.
Don't knock the cops. White cop kills black kid and it makes headline news. I don't know if the details make it out of the City but the kid ran into a dark ally, got caught in a dead end and started playing with his pants. This is in an area where after the riots were done there were 90 shooting incedents in 30 days with 30 deaths. The only reason I heard about that is because I was talking to a cop. That news didn't even make a splash inside the city. I realize there are worse places in the country, but I wouldn't exactly call it a safe neighborhood. If you knew everyone was packing I'd be nervous too.
I don't think professors at a university care so much about reliability.
How does this affect porn?
How about we figure out a way to make students care period. I'm in my senior year in college (EE) and only realized last year that it's about gaining knowledge and not the grades for the paper. I have a large number of friends who are intelligent but had no desire to learn & thus have done nothing since high school. If it wasn't for my natural ability I doubt if I would have made it as far as I have. I wish someone could have made me realize three years ago that I need to learn as much as possible, just because.
10,000 km / 3*10^8 m/s (speed of light)
That's 33us one way.
OK, I don't know HTML and I didn't preview. This is prettier.
The TT is still fully valid today.
OK I agree with that, but not from an AI standpoint. It's a philosophical debate. You really can't prove that a machine could ever, or never could pass the TT.
They work mostly by building enormous databases of statement-response pairs and doing minimal reasoning. Turing would have died laughing if he had known people would take this approach to passing the TT. Let me illustrate why the database idea is insufficient by itself: for a bot to pass the real TT, it would have to answer questions like "what is the integral of e^x dx". Remember that the interrogator is actively trying to find out if it is a human or a bot. The objection "but two humans in conversation wouldn't ask such question" is invalid, and this is precisely why the Loebner contest is stupid.
What if your database was large enough to know that e^x dx was e^x. If the computer could answer such questions would that be sufficent evidence to you that the machine was human. I think the reason the TT pisses off AI people is because of the need for this huge statement-response database. At that point the computer really isn't thinking, it's using a look-up table for answers. With a large enough database a computer could pass a TT without any intellegence at all.
The goal of AI is to make computers think and reason. To really pass the TT the computer would have to understand english gramatically and then assign meaning to each of the words and then use reason to relate them together. I don't believe anyone is working on this, but if that was the goal of the AI people they might not dislike the TT so much.
The TT is still fully valid today.
OK I agree with that, but not from an AI standpoint. It's a philosophical debate. You really can't prove that a machine could ever, or never could pass the TT.
They work mostly by building enormous databases of statement-response pairs and doing minimal reasoning. Turing would have died laughing if he had known people would take this approach to passing the TT. Let me illustrate why the database idea is insufficient by itself: for a bot to pass the real TT, it would have to answer questions like "what is the integral of e^x dx". Remember that the interrogator is actively trying to find out if it is a human or a bot. The objection "but two humans in conversation wouldn't ask such question" is invalid, and this is precisely why the Loebner contest is stupid.
What if your database was large enough to know that e^x dx was e^x. If the computer could answer such questions would that be sufficent evidence to you that the machine was human. I think the reason the TT pisses off AI people is because of the need for this huge statement-response database. At that point the computer really isn't thinking, it's using a look-up table for answers. With a large enough database a computer could pass a TT without any intellegence at all.
The goal of AI is to make computers think and reason. To really pass the TT the computer would have to understand english gramatically and then assign meaning to each of the words and then use reason to relate them together. I don't believe anyone is working on this, but if that was the goal of the AI people they might not dislike the TT so much.
They have ATV tracks on their web site. Maybe if you contacted them they could help you/investigate a new line of products.