Take a sample of 1000 people and have them be judges and contestants in the turing test and see if a machine is as likely to be voted human as a real human. **I don't see whats so unscientific about this.**
Like I said, I don't take this shit seriously...this is ridiculous & it hurts our industry.
Nitpicking my language (it's "consciousness" not "life" even though you knew what I meant by context) doesn't disprove my points.
Conversation over. You need to rethink all of this...
Look man, thanks for typing that out but you admit your contradiction:
By Turing logic, if I can make you think a steaming pile of shit is a steak dinner, and you eat it, then even though you at shit to **you** it actually was a steak dinner.
A pile of shit is always a pile of shit, wether or not **you** think it's a steak dinner.
So something is "conscious" if, like Turing says, it can make a person think it's conscious...you say as much here:
The fact that it is more convincing (to human perception) when data asks for rights is what makes the difference.
**according to which human???** this is the opposite of science.
It's about structure & function not being able to fool some dumbass.
t's a stupid, facile, completely arbitrary goalpost...it's whatever you want to make up...it's **not verifyable** and therefore not scientific
I'm not going to sit with you and argue Turing. It's bullshit to define "machinic life" as anything that can cause a human to think it's "alive"
exactly the problem. the "turning test" is a facile demonstration...not a scientific "test" at all.
Do yourself a favor and ignore Turing completely when thinking about computing.
A government can grant civil rights to a rock. That doesn't make it intelligent.
I didn't say it would make it "intelligent"...it would do just as I said, give it legal rights. Just as giving Commander Data legal rights doesn't make it any more or less "human"...confering rights doesn't change the molecules of the thing.
Your analogy is ridiculous b/c it is irrational. If a being like Data was created, which mimics human thought on the most basic level (which, as TFA describes, we don't even have the theory to contexualize such a thing, let alone the ability to make it)...if we made it, there would be a ration question of what kind of rights it has.
It's rational to ask if Data should have rights if he existed...it's not rational to ask if a rock should have rights. Your analogy fails.
Both the "turing test" and "intelligence" are matters of ****HUMAN PERCEPTION****
Commander Data is a fictional character. The character occurs in a ****context**** where humanity has made technological jumps that enable ***storytelling****
I absolutely hate that really, really intelligent people are reduced to this horrible of an analogy to comprehend what's happening in AI....and I *love* Star Trek! I'm a trekkie!
Even if we had solved these problems and a present day Noonian Soong had already built a robot with the potential for human equivalent intelligence – it still might not have enough time to develop adult-equivalent intelligence by 2029'
So all engineering & physical science, biology, neuroscience, physics...all of this is 'not a problem' anymore in this random context....**still** this Data still is nothing more than an immitation of a human. Different capabilities sure, but still a programmed machine.
The only thing that can make a machine have "civil rights" like Data was granted in his court hearing would be...for a government to declare that beings like Data have **human rights**...it's a question of politics not programming.
So we need to recontextualize all of "artificial intelligence" work to be about **accomplishing a task** not some abstract "Commander Data Milestone"
yeah...so you're right that theoretically factors similar to that are involved in non-verbal communication
but you're waaay waaaay off still...you have to pick...are we comparing calk-only to **anything a computer could do?**
b/c...um...there's are **tons of whiteboard/chalkboard programs** that are a visual representation of a blank board you "write" on with a mouse
do you understand that? a computer can simulate a white/chalk board...everything except the dust
so the factors & characteristics you are attempting to put into a testable hypothesis are improperly chosen...those are the most salient factors & you're mixing cause/effect
your error is trying to make that comparison at all...
We don't need to make an archane, arbitrary ban on all "powerpoint"...it's stupid for several reasons
1. "powerpoint" is a software program...computer projectors can project any image, including **other presentation software** or a web browser...to ban one specific software is absolutely foolish, and to ban using all computer projection is moreso
2. no one "needs" any piece of software or display equipment. they are all ****TOOLS FOR COMMUNICATION**** to be used as needed.
3. the problem of "bad powerpoints" cannot be solved by banning the use of "powerpoint" (w/e that means)....it will only be sovled by professors & other presentors ***learning how to use technology effectively in public speaking***
What TFA is suggesting is that communicating by chalkboard **has fundamental differences** from communicating by PP, in the same way (if not to the same severity) that communicating by in-person lecture is fundamentally different from communicating by a video on YouTube
right...you're in the ballpark but the comparisons are off-angle
chalk-only (or whiteboard) vs ppt is the wrong context that causes confusion
1. it's a false dichotomy...both can be used
2. disctinction must be made between using a 'projected computer screen' and the **software** called "powerpoint"...I can show a youtube video in a ppt, or I can show it in a browser, or I can download the video to the hard drive....it's all video!
3. it's not a question of "features"...we're not buying a fsking BMW here...this is about channels of communication...how wide & how much noise is there?
In the context of any presentation, the speaker uses **all the tools available to their most funcitonal**...that's it...
You can't get around the fact that the whole "problem" of "bad powerpoint" is due to the speakers themselves not undertanding how to use a **more complex** communication channel effectively
You know i have won several best talks/presentations awards at some pretty big conferences.
No, I didn't know that, but I made pains to say specifically in my post: " I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional."....
so...I continue my lamentations....srsly we need to be able to directly contradict each other without it being personal
you ARE using a less complex communication channel when you go 'chalk-only'....and dude i'm old-school, for real....but it's arbitrary and re-inforces bad problem solving skills to just ***not use*** something b/c you can't handle it's complexity
making archane "no powerpoint" rules shows that you surrender to the complexity of the software....and its the students that suffer
also, I've worked as a prof myself & in our current academic climate a prof must **seek out** helpful feedback...with positive effort...students are conditioned not to make constructive criticism!!!!
"powerpoint" is a brand name for a computer program that can make visual computer images & text
**images & text**
that's all powerpoint is...
You are depriving students of a very effective communication channel b/c you don't know how to use it properly. I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional...but **regressing to using ONLY CHALK is a problem of THE PRESENTER**
Chalk-only is much more simplistic. Science types are typically horrible public speakers. Using something as *visually complex* as PPT effectively in a speech or presentation requires mid-level presentation skills.
The first lesson I used to teach for PPT is "less is more" You can have 'slides' you hand out but don't present, also, your handout doesn't *just* have to have your PPT slides
Also, the "PPT" has become a way for people to procrastinate & do half-ass work. Especially in business sectors that are very perception-based, the presentation is what gets you the contract, not the RFP....not saying it's right or good, just describing how things often work.
Powerpoint is a computer program....**its just another communication channel** the fact that some people can't use it effectively means they need to *learn better communication and speaking skills*
WaPo stops short of outright *saying* she committed suicide, but that's certainly the conclusion they're leading their readers to.
There's a reason the press shies away from it. Mental health organizations have guidelines and recommendations on how to report responsibly on suicides.
wrong...this is probably a cover-up....**technically** you're right, in the sense that yes...indeed...details of a suicide or abuse situation that are irrelevant are often left out voluntarily by the reporter. Yes that happens...
the police report was **completely inconclusive** and give the context of the killing, namely the BTC armageddon, along with other factors leads to a rational suspicion of foul play
your point is not a counterpoint to GP...its obliquely related, and serves to inject uncertainty into the debate, but it is not a counter...
the WaPo article saying it was "suicide" is not trustworthy and neither is your line of thinking
Politicians get voted out of office **all the time** in America.
People loose races yes... but on average an incumbent is far more likely to hold onto their seat then lose it to a non-incumbent.
absolutely wrong...Corrupt officials get voted out alot more often than the norm...you can't just compare **all** politicians & say that proves your point. When a politician engages in behavior that demands accountability they are ****much more likely**** to get voted out of office
Governments have more accountability than private companies in a democracy...no matter what the economic system.
For the most part I can (and do) choose which companies I do business with... I don't have the same degree of choice when it comes to government.
again wrong...IF YOU VOTE you have influence on how the government spends your tax money!!
the GOP and Democrats are very different, any look at their *actual policies* and voting records proves that...
*money influences politics in absolutely all situations* just because that's true doesn't mean that the GOP and Dems are always the same on everything...in fact, they are very different! they vote for contradictory policies all the time...the US Congess is an absolute clusterfuck of partisanship based ***policy differences***
nothing you can say can get around the fact that VOTING GIVES YOU POWER and accountability over corporations via government that otherwise you wouldn't have
the site was built to specifications...it's that those spec's were written to make the site a revenue channel for **private insurance** not provide ratings and info on policies
here is the original IT manager for the project, who was fired for asking exactly the questions you're asking:
the needs of the site (and any site like this) are not extraordinary...the HTML & CSS practically writes itself...the only really difficult area is handling the HIPPA data securely
Here's an interview where the original IT Manager of the project (who raised red flags & got fired)...they even told her to attribute her firing to a death in the family to cover their tracks!
The site wasn't meant to list & rate available policies...any kind of Yelp clone could do that, probably with alot of off-the-shelf libraries. The site was meant to be a revenue channel for the private insurance industry.
The site "worked"...it was built to specifications. It's **the purpose of the site** as directed by non-tech health industry people that was the failure.
If you looked at the original site, it was essentially a guide to signing up for ****private insurance**** like Kaiser Nazi-mente, which run the Oregon Health Authority
Those private companies wrote the requirements for what the site would do!
-- Lawson said she repeatedly warned Bruce Goldberg, then director of the Oregon Health Authority and the senior manager overseeing the exchange project, that the project was in trouble. Goldberg took no action, telling her that Cover Oregon had things well in hand.
Too many governments deliver sub-standard public services without any risk or recourse
Are we talking global politics here?
If we're talking US, then this is wrong. Politicians get voted out of office **all the time** in America. Sometimes they go to jail for their treachery. That's alot more accountability than a government contractor has.
Governments have more accountability than private companies in a democracy...no matter what the economic system.
If we're talking globally, the democracy factor is still key: The more democratic (and less corrupt) a polity is, the more accountability it will have....regardless of economic system.
Corporations are legal entities specifically **designed to avoid individual accountability for decision makers**
you don't need TED-talk style "innovation"...the problem isn't with libraries...it's with the GOP politicians who gut their funding then say they are not popular, then hook up an "innovative" private company to do for 3x the cost to the taxpayer and less services than what the original library did
here's the steps:
1. Cut funding from library via policy (usually justified by a need for 'budget cuts') 2. People use library less b/c library can't offer as many services 3. Data shows people don't use the library as much b/c it lacks X services 4. GOP connected *private company* uses PR to place stories in local newspaper about "new tech innovation" that will make the library "cool" again 5. Local government gives private company multi-year contract 6. Politician gets kickback 7. Taxpayers get **less services** for **more money** with **less accountability**
that's it...that's what's happening here..."3rd Party Library" my ass
there will be at least one more major peak and major bust before this roller coaster is over for sure. Lock in for it!
ok got you down for that we'll see...i'd put it at a steady, consistent decline to about $30-5 per BTC over 2 years...i know that's a long time but that's my prediciton
preventing these problems from capsizing the whole project
IMHO the ship has sunk.
How could you contend otherwise? Yes, you may point out that BTC still has X million in currency but for how long? The winds are changing and BTC is *just now* getting on the Fed's radar screen. BTC will devolve back into it's origins as a scam/drug payment method or it will get corporatized to irrelevance.
hey man, it's not like I excoriated your whole existence
I *did* have a coherent point...about our industry and hype...that's where my rage was vented no you, Wild_dog!
Yes you exhibited fanboi behavior. Linux fanboi.
TFA seemed a bit like an ad for Linux...Android was developed by google, so a Gentoo user claiming that Android's penetration is a "win for Linux" was questionable. TFA was not what it seemed.
A commenter pointed out this and YOU responded.
Your response was a fanboi response. The GP raised a **legitimate point** and you answered as if your point **bingo** answered that criticism.
BINGO
"soon"
your point about Sailfish OS and Meego does NOT answer the GP's criticism!
Slashdot Mirror
*Now* the conversation is over...
Like I said, I don't take this shit seriously...this is ridiculous & it hurts our industry.
Nitpicking my language (it's "consciousness" not "life" even though you knew what I meant by context) doesn't disprove my points.
Conversation over. You need to rethink all of this...
Look man, thanks for typing that out but you admit your contradiction:
By Turing logic, if I can make you think a steaming pile of shit is a steak dinner, and you eat it, then even though you at shit to **you** it actually was a steak dinner.
A pile of shit is always a pile of shit, wether or not **you** think it's a steak dinner.
So something is "conscious" if, like Turing says, it can make a person think it's conscious...you say as much here:
**according to which human???** this is the opposite of science.
It's about structure & function not being able to fool some dumbass.
t's a stupid, facile, completely arbitrary goalpost...it's whatever you want to make up...it's **not verifyable** and therefore not scientific
I'm not going to sit with you and argue Turing. It's bullshit to define "machinic life" as anything that can cause a human to think it's "alive"
exactly the problem. the "turning test" is a facile demonstration...not a scientific "test" at all.
Do yourself a favor and ignore Turing completely when thinking about computing.
I didn't say it would make it "intelligent"...it would do just as I said, give it legal rights. Just as giving Commander Data legal rights doesn't make it any more or less "human"...confering rights doesn't change the molecules of the thing.
Your analogy is ridiculous b/c it is irrational. If a being like Data was created, which mimics human thought on the most basic level (which, as TFA describes, we don't even have the theory to contexualize such a thing, let alone the ability to make it)...if we made it, there would be a ration question of what kind of rights it has.
It's rational to ask if Data should have rights if he existed...it's not rational to ask if a rock should have rights. Your analogy fails.
Both the "turing test" and "intelligence" are matters of ****HUMAN PERCEPTION****
Commander Data is a fictional character. The character occurs in a ****context**** where humanity has made technological jumps that enable ***storytelling****
I absolutely hate that really, really intelligent people are reduced to this horrible of an analogy to comprehend what's happening in AI....and I *love* Star Trek! I'm a trekkie!
So all engineering & physical science, biology, neuroscience, physics...all of this is 'not a problem' anymore in this random context....**still** this Data still is nothing more than an immitation of a human. Different capabilities sure, but still a programmed machine.
The only thing that can make a machine have "civil rights" like Data was granted in his court hearing would be...for a government to declare that beings like Data have **human rights**...it's a question of politics not programming.
So we need to recontextualize all of "artificial intelligence" work to be about **accomplishing a task** not some abstract "Commander Data Milestone"
And we all need to just ignore Kurzweil forever.
right...
yeah...so you're right that theoretically factors similar to that are involved in non-verbal communication
but you're waaay waaaay off still...you have to pick...are we comparing calk-only to **anything a computer could do?**
b/c...um...there's are **tons of whiteboard/chalkboard programs** that are a visual representation of a blank board you "write" on with a mouse
do you understand that? a computer can simulate a white/chalk board...everything except the dust
so the factors & characteristics you are attempting to put into a testable hypothesis are improperly chosen...those are the most salient factors & you're mixing cause/effect
your error is trying to make that comparison at all...
ok...
We don't need to make an archane, arbitrary ban on all "powerpoint"...it's stupid for several reasons
1. "powerpoint" is a software program...computer projectors can project any image, including **other presentation software** or a web browser...to ban one specific software is absolutely foolish, and to ban using all computer projection is moreso
2. no one "needs" any piece of software or display equipment. they are all ****TOOLS FOR COMMUNICATION**** to be used as needed.
3. the problem of "bad powerpoints" cannot be solved by banning the use of "powerpoint" (w/e that means)....it will only be sovled by professors & other presentors ***learning how to use technology effectively in public speaking***
right...you're in the ballpark but the comparisons are off-angle
chalk-only (or whiteboard) vs ppt is the wrong context that causes confusion
1. it's a false dichotomy...both can be used
2. disctinction must be made between using a 'projected computer screen' and the **software** called "powerpoint"...I can show a youtube video in a ppt, or I can show it in a browser, or I can download the video to the hard drive....it's all video!
3. it's not a question of "features"...we're not buying a fsking BMW here...this is about channels of communication...how wide & how much noise is there?
In the context of any presentation, the speaker uses **all the tools available to their most funcitonal**...that's it...
You can't get around the fact that the whole "problem" of "bad powerpoint" is due to the speakers themselves not undertanding how to use a **more complex** communication channel effectively
No, I didn't know that, but I made pains to say specifically in my post: " I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional."....
so...I continue my lamentations....srsly we need to be able to directly contradict each other without it being personal
you ARE using a less complex communication channel when you go 'chalk-only'....and dude i'm old-school, for real....but it's arbitrary and re-inforces bad problem solving skills to just ***not use*** something b/c you can't handle it's complexity
making archane "no powerpoint" rules shows that you surrender to the complexity of the software....and its the students that suffer
also, I've worked as a prof myself & in our current academic climate a prof must **seek out** helpful feedback...with positive effort...students are conditioned not to make constructive criticism!!!!
ppt vs chalk-only is a false dichotomy
you can use **both**
this whole thing is about a lack of ability to use a complex communication channel effectively
"powerpoint" is a brand name for a computer program that can make visual computer images & text
**images & text**
that's all powerpoint is...
You are depriving students of a very effective communication channel b/c you don't know how to use it properly. I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional...but **regressing to using ONLY CHALK is a problem of THE PRESENTER**
Chalk-only is much more simplistic. Science types are typically horrible public speakers. Using something as *visually complex* as PPT effectively in a speech or presentation requires mid-level presentation skills.
The first lesson I used to teach for PPT is "less is more" You can have 'slides' you hand out but don't present, also, your handout doesn't *just* have to have your PPT slides
Also, the "PPT" has become a way for people to procrastinate & do half-ass work. Especially in business sectors that are very perception-based, the presentation is what gets you the contract, not the RFP....not saying it's right or good, just describing how things often work.
Powerpoint is a computer program....**its just another communication channel** the fact that some people can't use it effectively means they need to *learn better communication and speaking skills*
you can have "no suspicion of foul play" AND "completely inconclusive" exist simultaneously....they are not mutually exclusive at all
ok listen guy, you're not the only one who understands this...in fact I assumed this level of knowledge:
1. rich criminals
2. not too hard for rich criminals
3. rich criminals
the details & context of the ***unexplained death*** are PRIMA FACIA meet your conspiracy possibility criteria
wrong...this is probably a cover-up....**technically** you're right, in the sense that yes...indeed...details of a suicide or abuse situation that are irrelevant are often left out voluntarily by the reporter. Yes that happens...
the police report was **completely inconclusive** and give the context of the killing, namely the BTC armageddon, along with other factors leads to a rational suspicion of foul play
your point is not a counterpoint to GP...its obliquely related, and serves to inject uncertainty into the debate, but it is not a counter...
the WaPo article saying it was "suicide" is not trustworthy and neither is your line of thinking
People loose races yes... but on average an incumbent is far more likely to hold onto their seat then lose it to a non-incumbent.
absolutely wrong...Corrupt officials get voted out alot more often than the norm ...you can't just compare **all** politicians & say that proves your point. When a politician engages in behavior that demands accountability they are ****much more likely**** to get voted out of office
For the most part I can (and do) choose which companies I do business with... I don't have the same degree of choice when it comes to government.
again wrong...IF YOU VOTE you have influence on how the government spends your tax money!!
the GOP and Democrats are very different, any look at their *actual policies* and voting records proves that...
*money influences politics in absolutely all situations* just because that's true doesn't mean that the GOP and Dems are always the same on everything...in fact, they are very different! they vote for contradictory policies all the time...the US Congess is an absolute clusterfuck of partisanship based ***policy differences***
nothing you can say can get around the fact that VOTING GIVES YOU POWER and accountability over corporations via government that otherwise you wouldn't have
stop copping out...claim your rights
the site was built to specifications...it's that those spec's were written to make the site a revenue channel for **private insurance** not provide ratings and info on policies
here is the original IT manager for the project, who was fired for asking exactly the questions you're asking:
http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...
the needs of the site (and any site like this) are not extraordinary...the HTML & CSS practically writes itself...the only really difficult area is handling the HIPPA data securely
Here's an interview where the original IT Manager of the project (who raised red flags & got fired)...they even told her to attribute her firing to a death in the family to cover their tracks!
http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...
The site wasn't meant to list & rate available policies...any kind of Yelp clone could do that, probably with alot of off-the-shelf libraries. The site was meant to be a revenue channel for the private insurance industry.
The site "worked"...it was built to specifications. It's **the purpose of the site** as directed by non-tech health industry people that was the failure.
If you looked at the original site, it was essentially a guide to signing up for ****private insurance**** like Kaiser Nazi-mente, which run the Oregon Health Authority
Those private companies wrote the requirements for what the site would do!
Look at this interview with the original IT manager: http://www.oregonlive.com/heal...
from the above link:
Are we talking global politics here?
If we're talking US, then this is wrong. Politicians get voted out of office **all the time** in America. Sometimes they go to jail for their treachery. That's alot more accountability than a government contractor has.
Governments have more accountability than private companies in a democracy...no matter what the economic system.
If we're talking globally, the democracy factor is still key: The more democratic (and less corrupt) a polity is, the more accountability it will have....regardless of economic system.
Corporations are legal entities specifically **designed to avoid individual accountability for decision makers**
i'm an idiot...not a bot...just an idiot
gotta be an all-time "did not read past the headline" situation for me...TFA is about...um software libraries
gah...sorry
**Libraries work just fine**
you don't need TED-talk style "innovation"...the problem isn't with libraries...it's with the GOP politicians who gut their funding then say they are not popular, then hook up an "innovative" private company to do for 3x the cost to the taxpayer and less services than what the original library did
here's the steps:
1. Cut funding from library via policy (usually justified by a need for 'budget cuts')
2. People use library less b/c library can't offer as many services
3. Data shows people don't use the library as much b/c it lacks X services
4. GOP connected *private company* uses PR to place stories in local newspaper about "new tech innovation" that will make the library "cool" again
5. Local government gives private company multi-year contract
6. Politician gets kickback
7. Taxpayers get **less services** for **more money** with **less accountability**
that's it...that's what's happening here..."3rd Party Library" my ass
this makes me happy, and the researchers should be happy as well...so another theory is proven wrong...*that's science*
ok got you down for that we'll see...i'd put it at a steady, consistent decline to about $30-5 per BTC over 2 years...i know that's a long time but that's my prediciton
well thnx for responding...i guess i will say you 'win' b/c you stayed on topic and didnt troll so good for you!
if you say you're not a fanboi at this point I'm inclined to agree...I'd appreciate some acknowledgement of my point about hype tho
L8r
IMHO the ship has sunk.
How could you contend otherwise? Yes, you may point out that BTC still has X million in currency but for how long? The winds are changing and BTC is *just now* getting on the Fed's radar screen. BTC will devolve back into it's origins as a scam/drug payment method or it will get corporatized to irrelevance.
hey man, it's not like I excoriated your whole existence
I *did* have a coherent point...about our industry and hype...that's where my rage was vented no you, Wild_dog!
Yes you exhibited fanboi behavior. Linux fanboi.
TFA seemed a bit like an ad for Linux...Android was developed by google, so a Gentoo user claiming that Android's penetration is a "win for Linux" was questionable. TFA was not what it seemed.
A commenter pointed out this and YOU responded.
Your response was a fanboi response. The GP raised a **legitimate point** and you answered as if your point **bingo** answered that criticism.
BINGO
"soon"
your point about Sailfish OS and Meego does NOT answer the GP's criticism!