``For all practical purposes human like intellectual capabilities'' yes. But the Turing Test doesn't constrain the problem to practical intelligence-testing questions. Consider: What happens if the computer is asked ``what is your birthday?'' It can lie, or give away that it's not a computer.
who is no hacker but one of the world's brightest minds
On second thought, I may be wrong about Minsky. His comments still place him in my camp on this (very hackerly) issue, though. In general, though, the two are far from mutually exclusive. Consider RMS, for example: definitely smarter than any of us here, but OTOH also a hacker.
the Loebner Prize committee's attempt to prevent a contestant from improperly claiming to have "passed" the Turing Test or the Loebner Prize.
(1) You claim to be able to prevent anyone from claiming to have passed the Turing Test?!?! Wow, I didn't know you invented that. In any case, if someone claims he passed your prize, when he didn't, you issue this thing called a press release and say he didn't. Your word against his, and it's his prize. There, nice now isn't it?
to my knowledge no one has ever been prevented from using the term anyway.
So? Look how far Bernstein gets with the same sort of argument. The mere fact that you claim to be able to withold permission to use the term ``Loebner Prize'' is the important thing.
Minsky chose to enter the intellectual arena against me, and paid the price.
You claim to have out-smarted ``one of the world's brightest minds''?!?! Out-childished him is more like it.
You're still evil. First you place rediculous IP restrictions on the name of your contest, then when a hacker complains, you claim he's on your side and abuse his laxity with his IP. I'm really quite scandalized you have as many supporters on/. as you do---you're even slimier than the M$ use of the BSD TCP/IP stack.
In my opinion, the AI community disparages Turing Test-like objectives because they've been unsuccessful at achieving them.
That's not an opinion; that's an incorrect factual statement. As for why it's incorrect: the Turing Test implicitly defines intelligent as `indiscernable from a human'. By Leibniz' principle, this means `a human'. So, a computer can never acheive the Turing Test's definition of `intelligence'. Of course, the AI community believes computers can be intelligent, so they have to reject the Turing Test, in much the same way that the practitioners of any field have to reject standards that implicitly outlaw their field. To give an analogy, requiring AIs to hold up under Turing Test conditions would be like requiring theories of evolution to satisfy hard-core Bible-thumpers. Scientists (quite rightly) don't accept those conditions, but no one says that ``makes biology less like science and more like selling Florida time-share condoes''.
The problem is, what that implies is: Google is a trademark, but common usage ignores that. So, he implies that the trademark is about to go generic (i.e., invalid). I don't consider that acceptable, and I'd be surprised if Google does.
I don't think that should be sufficient---he's still implying that `to google' means `to use google or one of its many competitors'. I doubt google will be satisfied with this.
Google wants `to google' to mean `to use google', not `to use google or any of google's many competitors'. Why do you think this is unreasonable?
Re:What the fux happended to "Dont Be Evil"!!!?
on
Verbing Weirds Google
·
· Score: 1
No, it's not. Word Spy says ``such as google.com'', not ``google.com''. Which means that neither do they mean ``search with Google'' nor are they helping google---thy're actually helping to dilute the trademark and hurting everyone else (except google's competitors, of course).
Well, if `to google' ever came to mean `use any search engine' google.com would/certainly/ have a case: all those Open Source hackers telling users with dumb questions ``google for it'' would be sending those users off to imitation sites, not the One True Search Engine. Hell, if that ever happened the OS hackers would have a case against who ever started it.
You've never tried to upgrade from Redhat 7.1 to 7.2 (I think those were the versions) using nothing but rpm, bash, and grep, have you? I have. That's why I now run Debian.
Re:Yet another ignorant but nice story about Linux
on
The Linux Uprising
·
· Score: 1
Sorry 'bout the other reply, this is what I meant to post:
(1) Your point is sort of like replying to someone who points out that Apple has < 5% of the desktop market: ``Your figures include all the non-Apple stuff that isn't part of the Apple market. Which is irrelevant to discussions of the Apple market.'' Yeah, Apple holds a monopoly on Macs. And shrink-wrapped software companies will die as Open Source takes over (at first because Open Source is driven by their deaths, later because their deaths are driven by Open Source:)
(2) ESR's figures do show something very important: the 90% of the shrink-wrap software industry could collapse tomorrow and nobody would notice. With Open Source, there's no real reason any software intended for commercial use has to be shrink wrapped; it could (in theory) all be developed in-house, and Open Source provides a way to adapt that in-house software development to a model that's at least as efficient as shrink wrap. So, the only software that has to be shrink-wrapped (if that) is software intended solely for home users: i.e., games. And even those could be split into Open Source engines and shrink-wrapped games. So, there's no software that really has to be 100% shrink-wrapped, so there's no software that has to be 100% proprietary.
Re:Yet another ignorant but nice story about Linux
on
The Linux Uprising
·
· Score: 1
(1) Your point is sort of like replying to someone who points out that Apple has any software intended for commercial use has to be shrink wrapped; it could (in theory) all be developed in-house, and Open Source provides a way to adapt that in-house software development to a model that's at least as efficient as shrink wrap. So, the only software that has to be shrink-wrapped (if that) is software intended solely for home users: i.e., games. And even those could be split into Open Source engines and shrink-wrapped games. So, there's no software that really has to be 100% shrink-wrapped, so there's no software that has to be 100% proprietary.
Slashdot Mirror
For what kind of tasks?
Lisp isn't a programming language? Why?
Obviously, it didn't work.
Yeah, but what are the odds of that? I wouldn't hold my breath.
In any case, I'll let the BSA off because they're sorry once I hear of them letting a company with unlicensed software off because they're sorry.
There'd be too many items to look through
``For all practical purposes human like intellectual capabilities'' yes. But the Turing Test doesn't constrain the problem to practical intelligence-testing questions. Consider: What happens if the computer is asked ``what is your birthday?'' It can lie, or give away that it's not a computer.
Just don't say you've ``passed'' the Loebner prize w/o his permission, or he'll sick his dogs on you, or something.
It's a pun.
On second thought, I may be wrong about Minsky. His comments still place him in my camp on this (very hackerly) issue, though. In general, though, the two are far from mutually exclusive. Consider RMS, for example: definitely smarter than any of us here, but OTOH also a hacker.
(1) You claim to be able to prevent anyone from claiming to have passed the Turing Test?!?! Wow, I didn't know you invented that. In any case, if someone claims he passed your prize, when he didn't, you issue this thing called a press release and say he didn't. Your word against his, and it's his prize. There, nice now isn't it?
So? Look how far Bernstein gets with the same sort of argument. The mere fact that you claim to be able to withold permission to use the term ``Loebner Prize'' is the important thing.
You claim to have out-smarted ``one of the world's brightest minds''?!?! Out-childished him is more like it.
You're still evil. First you place rediculous IP restrictions on the name of your contest, then when a hacker complains, you claim he's on your side and abuse his laxity with his IP. I'm really quite scandalized you have as many supporters on /. as you do---you're even slimier than the M$ use of the BSD TCP/IP stack.
So it's enough to get me to the moon and back? Cool.
That's not an opinion; that's an incorrect factual statement. As for why it's incorrect: the Turing Test implicitly defines intelligent as `indiscernable from a human'. By Leibniz' principle, this means `a human'. So, a computer can never acheive the Turing Test's definition of `intelligence'. Of course, the AI community believes computers can be intelligent, so they have to reject the Turing Test, in much the same way that the practitioners of any field have to reject standards that implicitly outlaw their field. To give an analogy, requiring AIs to hold up under Turing Test conditions would be like requiring theories of evolution to satisfy hard-core Bible-thumpers. Scientists (quite rightly) don't accept those conditions, but no one says that ``makes biology less like science and more like selling Florida time-share condoes''.
There's no threat of pain or death involved in doing drugs? Funny, I thought those things were pretty deadly...
Your DNS is stale or you're going to directly to the ip address. When the DNS updates, you'll get the DOJ site.
How many users who know about notepad these days don't know about regedit?
The problem is, what that implies is: Google is a trademark, but common usage ignores that. So, he implies that the trademark is about to go generic (i.e., invalid). I don't consider that acceptable, and I'd be surprised if Google does.
I don't think that should be sufficient---he's still implying that `to google' means `to use google or one of its many competitors'. I doubt google will be satisfied with this.
Google wants `to google' to mean `to use google', not `to use google or any of google's many competitors'. Why do you think this is unreasonable?
No, it's not. Word Spy says ``such as google.com'', not ``google.com''. Which means that neither do they mean ``search with Google'' nor are they helping google---thy're actually helping to dilute the trademark and hurting everyone else (except google's competitors, of course).
Well, if `to google' ever came to mean `use any search engine' google.com would /certainly/ have a case: all those Open Source hackers telling users with dumb questions ``google for it'' would be sending those users off to imitation sites, not the One True Search Engine. Hell, if that ever happened the OS hackers would have a case against who ever started it.
You've never tried to upgrade from Redhat 7.1 to 7.2 (I think those were the versions) using nothing but rpm, bash, and grep, have you? I have. That's why I now run Debian.
Sorry 'bout the other reply, this is what I meant to post:
:)
(1) Your point is sort of like replying to someone who points out that Apple has < 5% of the desktop market: ``Your figures include all the non-Apple stuff that isn't part of the Apple market. Which is irrelevant to discussions of the Apple market.'' Yeah, Apple holds a monopoly on Macs. And shrink-wrapped software companies will die as Open Source takes over (at first because Open Source is driven by their deaths, later because their deaths are driven by Open Source
(2) ESR's figures do show something very important: the 90% of the shrink-wrap software industry could collapse tomorrow and nobody would notice. With Open Source, there's no real reason any software intended for commercial use has to be shrink wrapped; it could (in theory) all be developed in-house, and Open Source provides a way to adapt that in-house software development to a model that's at least as efficient as shrink wrap. So, the only software that has to be shrink-wrapped (if that) is software intended solely for home users: i.e., games. And even those could be split into Open Source engines and shrink-wrapped games. So, there's no software that really has to be 100% shrink-wrapped, so there's no software that has to be 100% proprietary.
(1) Your point is sort of like replying to someone who points out that Apple has any software intended for commercial use has to be shrink wrapped; it could (in theory) all be developed in-house, and Open Source provides a way to adapt that in-house software development to a model that's at least as efficient as shrink wrap. So, the only software that has to be shrink-wrapped (if that) is software intended solely for home users: i.e., games. And even those could be split into Open Source engines and shrink-wrapped games. So, there's no software that really has to be 100% shrink-wrapped, so there's no software that has to be 100% proprietary.
Are you assuming they'd move all the Xboxen anyway?
Actually, I don't choose to work in a language that requires source programs to be lambda-lifted. That doesn't make me a bad person, does it?