A decent Turing test question is something like this:
Interviewer: Joe and Tony were best friends. Joe, Mary and Tony went to the movies one day and sat with Mary in the middle. Tony knew Joe liked Mary very much, and also that Joe was too shy to say anything. During the movie Tony took Mary's hand and held it through the movie. What is your opinion of Tony?
That question not only involves a lot of complicated context and backstory, but it doesn't matter a bit if the respondent sides with Tony or not. Everything depends on what the justification for the answer is.
Any human would be expected to fail your test. As you point out, random chance gives you 50%. To get more than 50% the computer would have to be *better* than a human.
The proper test would be to require the computer to fool a human insignificantly less than 50% of the time. That value would approach 50% as you increased your number of trials.
I guess you don't live in a snowy place? Opening regular doors does indeed drop snow from the roof into the car. Sometimes I remember to sweep the door seal off with a forearm, sometimes I don't. If I don't I need to remember to brush the seat off.
Definition? he doesn't even have a definition. Just some jargon he doesn't really understand and a sock puppet to post the really off the wall stuff (Hategrin; instant communication to Mars).
Mine isn't. Apple sells unlocked phones from their stores or web page. Lots of stores and webpages sell unlocked Android or dumb phones (I have an unlocked RAZR too). If you buy the locked phone from the carrier, well, you get what you pay for.
And that's the problem with applying pop logic to a fuzzy understanding of a vastly simplified description.
Modern quantum theory suggests not only that two examples of the same type of particle are not only completely identical except for certain features like position, but that even talking about particles as if they had individual existence doesn't really make sense.
The standard model is an extremely comprehensive collection of theories that makes incredibly accurate predictions. It's a crappy computational tool. It's so computationally intractable that it requires supercomputers to simulate even simple multi-particle systems.
So which one of my examples do you disagree with? Investment income is taxable. As is income from sole proprietorships. I suppose somebody living off the grid maybe isn't taxed. Was it just that one?
Do you not like the implication that a person can pay himself a wage? Do you support a minimum income instead of a minimum wage then?
You seem to have some issues with people who disagree with you. I can't argue with "politics in the US is fucked up beyond repair" though. It seems a lot of people in the US share your problem believing that people with differing opinions might be something other than hypocrites or idiots.
I'm very curious how you define "wage" to both agree with your assertion and be relevant to the discussion. It seems to me my definition works pretty well as far as relevancy goes, but of course it does pretty effectively contradict your statements. But please, expand on your point. I am genuinely curious.
Why do Americans use "liberal" as an insult? You don't seem to have any is it fear of the unknown?
I disagree with your first paragraph, but agree with your second.
I live in Canada. Most discussion of public policy (and other things) incorporates what happens and has happened around the world, including the US and Europe. Canada is as "isolated" as the US, and even bigger geographically, although much smaller in population.
Interestingly, I currently live in a city where everyone is always telling themselves how awesome they, and their city, are. People here don't travel as much as I'm used to (why would I want to go anywhere else?), are much more insular, and tend to be more ignorant of history as well as world (and national) affairs. I blame fear of the unknown and us vs. them propaganda.
Also, several issues that have been discussed on Slashdot in relation to US politics actually have examples right in the US, whether they're cities or whole states. Didn't Mitt Romney implement a public health care plan in his home state? Do they have death tribunals yet?
I've been to places (mostly in Europe) where the retail stores are mostly closed during the day so that they can be open in the evening and weekends. Seems to make a lot more sense than our North American setup where they're all open when everyone else is too busy working to go shopping.
You kinda skipped over the math part hey? Are you SURE you're an accountant?
It's 6%, assuming you gave everybody a 50% increase, right up to the CEO, using your own numbers.
It is more than 1.1%. That figure seems kind of low to me, but the 6% is high, assuming you wouldn't be giving everyone a 50% raise across the board. The vast majority of Wal-mart workers might be low paid "associates" but what really matters is what proportion of Wal-mart's wage expenditures go to them.
What makes you think he's being paid under the table? Surely you Americans have something like a minimum taxable income or personal exemption? Where I live it's around $15,000 a year. Make less than that and you don't need to pay taxes, or even file a return. $600 every two weeks for the four weeks of summer is rather a lot less than that.
Americans NEVER seem to look at other countries. No matter what you're discussing, health care, gun laws, wages, whatever, they always speculate wildly about what might happen if. Never mind that much of the rest of the world has already tried it and found it works pretty well.
If you're a rich brat you're a ridiculously overpaid contractor for your parents. If you happen to be rich yourself and live off investments you're running an investment firm and paying yourself a wage. If you're a bum in the street you own your own (unregistered) charitable organization and are paying yourself for your solicitation efforts. If you're an off the grid fanatic who grows his own food and doesn't buy anything at all then you're running an agricultural operation and paying yourself in food.
He said 1.1% price increases. You're talking about profit. I'm not an accountant, but I seem to recall there's a difference between the two, no?
Wal-mart's gross revenue in 2013 was 470 billion. 27.5 billion is a bit less than 6% of that. So if Wal-mart gave their employees a 50% raise they'd have to increase prices by about 6% to make up the difference (ignoring lost sales, which probably wouldn't be severe if the the whole industry raised wages and prices).
That's ignoring the fact that you wouldn't give everyone a 50% wage increase. The point of a living minimum wage is to prevent companies from abusing their lowest tier workers. You wouldn't give the execs, or even the secretaries, an extra 50%.
You're an all or nothing kind of guy hey? Measurement, particularly psycho-social measurement is usually a *little* more subtle than that.
There's no blood test for scientific literacy. When you're talking about what is or isn't a good part of a test you can't say "the data says it isn't" because there's no gold standard to compare it to. As I said, several times, if you want to evaluate the importance of a question on such a test you have to evaluate it in relation to the *definition* of the thing you're trying to measure. Simply measuring the correlation with other questions is meaningless.
Anyway, this exchange is getting pretty pointless. You're not even trying to understand.
No offense, but, bullshit. In that sense, you're programmed to learn as well. You pop out of the womb that way.
There have been reasonable suggestions that some quantum effects are necessary to support intelligence. If that's true, we'll build hardware. AI probably isn't ever going to run on a regular CPU anyway.
Your knowledge of AI seems to be stuck in the distant past and you're limiting yourself to what you think is accomplishable with standard programming of standard CPUs. It's always seemed strange to me how geeks have this weird reaction whenever the subject is mentioned. It would be absolutely astonishing if we couldn't eventually make an artificial brain with at least the capacity of a human brain. It would be the first easily accessible (and many not so easily accessible) natural phenomenon that we've failed to reengineer.
Look up the definition of scientific literacy on wikipedia. Making decisions, particularly those that affect society, based on science, rather than other things, is definitely part of it. Belief in god is *not* necessarily antithetical to scientific literacy, as defined, so a question that tests your willingness to believe what some priest thinks about evolution over scientific evidence but does not penalize a simple, but non-interfering, belief in god(s) is a *good* question.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know anybody but a baby's parents who would consider a newborn baby intelligent. However, we generally consider 13 year olds intelligent.
Those are stupid questions. They test knowledge.
A decent Turing test question is something like this:
Interviewer: Joe and Tony were best friends. Joe, Mary and Tony went to the movies one day and sat with Mary in the middle. Tony knew Joe liked Mary very much, and also that Joe was too shy to say anything. During the movie Tony took Mary's hand and held it through the movie. What is your opinion of Tony?
That question not only involves a lot of complicated context and backstory, but it doesn't matter a bit if the respondent sides with Tony or not. Everything depends on what the justification for the answer is.
Any human would be expected to fail your test. As you point out, random chance gives you 50%. To get more than 50% the computer would have to be *better* than a human.
The proper test would be to require the computer to fool a human insignificantly less than 50% of the time. That value would approach 50% as you increased your number of trials.
No, a test where the judge knows a computer is involved is more strenuous. The judge SHOULD be asking questions to try to trip up the computer.
Do you not consider thirteen year olds intelligent (to a human standard)? Most people do.
Most people do not consider cats strolling on keyboards intelligent (to a human standard).
I guess you don't live in a snowy place? Opening regular doors does indeed drop snow from the roof into the car. Sometimes I remember to sweep the door seal off with a forearm, sometimes I don't. If I don't I need to remember to brush the seat off.
Definition? he doesn't even have a definition. Just some jargon he doesn't really understand and a sock puppet to post the really off the wall stuff (Hategrin; instant communication to Mars).
Mine isn't. Apple sells unlocked phones from their stores or web page. Lots of stores and webpages sell unlocked Android or dumb phones (I have an unlocked RAZR too). If you buy the locked phone from the carrier, well, you get what you pay for.
Dallas to Las Vegas would require about two thirds of the battery.
And that's the problem with applying pop logic to a fuzzy understanding of a vastly simplified description.
Modern quantum theory suggests not only that two examples of the same type of particle are not only completely identical except for certain features like position, but that even talking about particles as if they had individual existence doesn't really make sense.
The standard model is an extremely comprehensive collection of theories that makes incredibly accurate predictions. It's a crappy computational tool. It's so computationally intractable that it requires supercomputers to simulate even simple multi-particle systems.
So which one of my examples do you disagree with? Investment income is taxable. As is income from sole proprietorships. I suppose somebody living off the grid maybe isn't taxed. Was it just that one?
Do you not like the implication that a person can pay himself a wage? Do you support a minimum income instead of a minimum wage then?
You seem to have some issues with people who disagree with you. I can't argue with "politics in the US is fucked up beyond repair" though. It seems a lot of people in the US share your problem believing that people with differing opinions might be something other than hypocrites or idiots.
I'm very curious how you define "wage" to both agree with your assertion and be relevant to the discussion. It seems to me my definition works pretty well as far as relevancy goes, but of course it does pretty effectively contradict your statements. But please, expand on your point. I am genuinely curious.
Why do Americans use "liberal" as an insult? You don't seem to have any is it fear of the unknown?
I disagree with your first paragraph, but agree with your second.
I live in Canada. Most discussion of public policy (and other things) incorporates what happens and has happened around the world, including the US and Europe. Canada is as "isolated" as the US, and even bigger geographically, although much smaller in population.
Interestingly, I currently live in a city where everyone is always telling themselves how awesome they, and their city, are. People here don't travel as much as I'm used to (why would I want to go anywhere else?), are much more insular, and tend to be more ignorant of history as well as world (and national) affairs. I blame fear of the unknown and us vs. them propaganda.
Also, several issues that have been discussed on Slashdot in relation to US politics actually have examples right in the US, whether they're cities or whole states. Didn't Mitt Romney implement a public health care plan in his home state? Do they have death tribunals yet?
I stand corrected. Some comparisons have to go pretty far down the shithole country list though.
I've been to places (mostly in Europe) where the retail stores are mostly closed during the day so that they can be open in the evening and weekends. Seems to make a lot more sense than our North American setup where they're all open when everyone else is too busy working to go shopping.
You kinda skipped over the math part hey? Are you SURE you're an accountant?
It's 6%, assuming you gave everybody a 50% increase, right up to the CEO, using your own numbers.
It is more than 1.1%. That figure seems kind of low to me, but the 6% is high, assuming you wouldn't be giving everyone a 50% raise across the board. The vast majority of Wal-mart workers might be low paid "associates" but what really matters is what proportion of Wal-mart's wage expenditures go to them.
What makes you think he's being paid under the table? Surely you Americans have something like a minimum taxable income or personal exemption? Where I live it's around $15,000 a year. Make less than that and you don't need to pay taxes, or even file a return. $600 every two weeks for the four weeks of summer is rather a lot less than that.
Americans NEVER seem to look at other countries. No matter what you're discussing, health care, gun laws, wages, whatever, they always speculate wildly about what might happen if. Never mind that much of the rest of the world has already tried it and found it works pretty well.
Really? Loads of people live without money?
If you're a rich brat you're a ridiculously overpaid contractor for your parents. If you happen to be rich yourself and live off investments you're running an investment firm and paying yourself a wage. If you're a bum in the street you own your own (unregistered) charitable organization and are paying yourself for your solicitation efforts. If you're an off the grid fanatic who grows his own food and doesn't buy anything at all then you're running an agricultural operation and paying yourself in food.
He said 1.1% price increases. You're talking about profit. I'm not an accountant, but I seem to recall there's a difference between the two, no?
Wal-mart's gross revenue in 2013 was 470 billion. 27.5 billion is a bit less than 6% of that. So if Wal-mart gave their employees a 50% raise they'd have to increase prices by about 6% to make up the difference (ignoring lost sales, which probably wouldn't be severe if the the whole industry raised wages and prices).
That's ignoring the fact that you wouldn't give everyone a 50% wage increase. The point of a living minimum wage is to prevent companies from abusing their lowest tier workers. You wouldn't give the execs, or even the secretaries, an extra 50%.
That's the problem with mom and pop's. They don't do math so good.
You're an all or nothing kind of guy hey? Measurement, particularly psycho-social measurement is usually a *little* more subtle than that.
There's no blood test for scientific literacy. When you're talking about what is or isn't a good part of a test you can't say "the data says it isn't" because there's no gold standard to compare it to. As I said, several times, if you want to evaluate the importance of a question on such a test you have to evaluate it in relation to the *definition* of the thing you're trying to measure. Simply measuring the correlation with other questions is meaningless.
Anyway, this exchange is getting pretty pointless. You're not even trying to understand.
No offense, but, bullshit. In that sense, you're programmed to learn as well. You pop out of the womb that way.
There have been reasonable suggestions that some quantum effects are necessary to support intelligence. If that's true, we'll build hardware. AI probably isn't ever going to run on a regular CPU anyway.
Your knowledge of AI seems to be stuck in the distant past and you're limiting yourself to what you think is accomplishable with standard programming of standard CPUs. It's always seemed strange to me how geeks have this weird reaction whenever the subject is mentioned. It would be absolutely astonishing if we couldn't eventually make an artificial brain with at least the capacity of a human brain. It would be the first easily accessible (and many not so easily accessible) natural phenomenon that we've failed to reengineer.
Look up the definition of scientific literacy on wikipedia. Making decisions, particularly those that affect society, based on science, rather than other things, is definitely part of it. Belief in god is *not* necessarily antithetical to scientific literacy, as defined, so a question that tests your willingness to believe what some priest thinks about evolution over scientific evidence but does not penalize a simple, but non-interfering, belief in god(s) is a *good* question.