After all why do I listen to their news? Whats the point in reading news if you are not even threatened by death...
I will read BBC again in 2059 to be sure
I do not share the concensus that computing power equals intelligence. It would seem that todays computers have more flops than simple insects( some numbers Just assume like 10^5 neurons, 10^2 spikes per seconds, 10^3 connections per neuron. Giving you 10^10 connection updates per second. Neural network simulators are not far away from that number. Some are even faster using parallel computers.
But still instects outperform any computer system in most recognition tasks, they show intelligent (or at least useful) behavior.
We are not in need of more flops or something. We are desperately in need of the slightest hint about how this great software... that defines our brain functions.
I bet that todays computers with the right software (that is learning, imitation etc) could seem astonishingly intelligent. We need brain power... not computer power to understand the brain.
Interesting... Italy has better coffee, switzerland is more democratic, france has better food, europe in general has more quality time spend with family and friends.
Where do you infer the "better than..." statement from? Spending most of my time abroad I can tell you that many systems, including the Italian, feature a set of agreeable rules.
And I guess you are aware that the right of free speech and the right of not being overly annoyed are always tradeoff. Also in America... so...
bettern than?
That way it is possible to use the intranet to produce pages to be read by the internet. Theoretically that can all be in 1 room managed by 1 person. In this case it is really theoretically impossible to hack the device.
Early AI assumed they could define the input output relations of their systems ignoring the details of the real world. I.e. people would write programs to pass the turing test. Wouldnt it make much more sense to build systems that learn from radio or video. Such systems might one day be able to learn to imitate people without any supervision.
The paper does not show that spam does not work. It just proves that when sending spammail you should only put 1 person into the to section.
And the fact that the virtual girl got responses from such a high percentage of recipients might be a hint that spammers should always use female names in reply to addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
After all why do I listen to their news? Whats the point in reading news if you are not even threatened by death ...
I will read BBC again in 2059 to be sure
I do not share the concensus that computing power equals intelligence. It would seem that todays computers have more flops than simple insects( some numbers Just assume like 10^5 neurons, 10^2 spikes per seconds, 10^3 connections per neuron. Giving you 10^10 connection updates per second. Neural network simulators are not far away from that number. Some are even faster using parallel computers.
But still instects outperform any computer system in most recognition tasks, they show intelligent (or at least useful) behavior.
We are not in need of more flops or something. We are desperately in need of the slightest hint about how this great software... that defines our brain functions.
I bet that todays computers with the right software (that is learning, imitation etc) could seem astonishingly intelligent. We need brain power ... not computer power to understand the brain.
Interesting... Italy has better coffee, switzerland is more democratic, france has better food, europe in general has more quality time spend with family and friends. Where do you infer the "better than..." statement from? Spending most of my time abroad I can tell you that many systems, including the Italian, feature a set of agreeable rules. And I guess you are aware that the right of free speech and the right of not being overly annoyed are always tradeoff. Also in America... so... bettern than?
That way it is possible to use the intranet to produce pages to be read by the internet. Theoretically that can all be in 1 room managed by 1 person. In this case it is really theoretically impossible to hack the device.
Early AI assumed they could define the input output relations of their systems ignoring the details of the real world. I.e. people would write programs to pass the turing test. Wouldnt it make much more sense to build systems that learn from radio or video. Such systems might one day be able to learn to imitate people without any supervision.
The paper does not show that spam does not work. It just proves that when sending spammail you should only put 1 person into the to section. And the fact that the virtual girl got responses from such a high percentage of recipients might be a hint that spammers should always use female names in reply to addresses.