But let's face it, this guy's not a troll. He's got a point to make. Hold science as high as it should be held, many run-of-the-mill science oriented folk have a knee jerk fear of the concept of God.
Interestingly, among the great scientists, you find much more variety of opinion on the matter.
People have pointed out that technology being used in the creation of art is not really new. The effect of the printing press and the invention of the new mediums of photography and motion picture show this point.
Technology as subject of art is also not new. Escher was brought up. An arguement could be made that his subject was mathematics, symmetries, paradox, and the like. Da Vinchi's sketches of his inventions are famous. In general, technical drawings, architectual plans, even pictures of machines, which are not new, fall in this category.
But Information as subject could be called a new idea. The pictures of visual maps of webspace that merited a coffee table book are conjured up.
But what about the collage? How old is that? WS Burrough's tape cut ups in the 60's also could be called art with information as subject. Sampling in music as well.
Even if you grant that this is a new trend (maybe you could say that the early works just hinted at what can be done now that massive stores of information can now be sorted, color coded, and what have you) Still, does this change alone warrant the two seperate worlds joining assertion when art and science/technology have really been partners for the bulk of their history?
Comaparing the main area of research for the company sponsering this competition, and the rules of the competition, I suspect they are going to try to use these bots to make some progress on the Turing test.
They defined 'game' widely enough to consider conversation a game.
The score is the reward/punishment - relevent and/or sensible responses are rewarded, etc.
I suspect they want to give the machines thousands of possible moves, each representing a phrase, and then set them loose 'against' each other, seeing which one can score the highest on the conversation scale.
Slashdot Mirror
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html
There were no Christians thousands of years ago.
But let's face it, this guy's not a troll. He's got a point to make. Hold science as high as it should be held, many run-of-the-mill science oriented folk have a knee jerk fear of the concept of God.
Interestingly, among the great scientists, you find much more variety of opinion on the matter.
From the terrific understatement department:
"Farmers have been dealing with self-replicating products for years."
How many years is that, exactly?
This is America, huh?
Looks like the internet to me...
This looks a lot like Damian Conway's Acme:Bleach, which cleans all the printable characters out a a Perl script.
People have pointed out that technology being used in the creation of art is not really new. The effect of the printing press and the invention of the new mediums of photography and motion picture show this point.
Technology as subject of art is also not new. Escher was brought up. An arguement could be made that his subject was mathematics, symmetries, paradox, and the like. Da Vinchi's sketches of his inventions are famous. In general, technical drawings, architectual plans, even pictures of machines, which are not new, fall in this category.
But Information as subject could be called a new idea. The pictures of visual maps of webspace that merited a coffee table book are conjured up.
But what about the collage? How old is that? WS Burrough's tape cut ups in the 60's also could be called art with information as subject. Sampling in music as well.
Even if you grant that this is a new trend (maybe you could say that the early works just hinted at what can be done now that massive stores of information can now be sorted, color coded, and what have you) Still, does this change alone warrant the two seperate worlds joining assertion when art and science/technology have really been partners for the bulk of their history?
'laizer
Comaparing the main area of research for the company sponsering this competition, and the rules of the competition, I suspect they are going to try to use these bots to make some progress on the Turing test. They defined 'game' widely enough to consider conversation a game. The score is the reward/punishment - relevent and/or sensible responses are rewarded, etc. I suspect they want to give the machines thousands of possible moves, each representing a phrase, and then set them loose 'against' each other, seeing which one can score the highest on the conversation scale.