This is a good point. I'm guessing every single one of the entries into these Turing test competitions since 'Eliza' has been an attempt by the programmer to trick the judges. Turing's goal, however, was that the AI itself would be doing the tricking. If the programmer is spending time thinking of how to manufacture bogus spelling errors so that they bot looks human, then I'm guessing Turing's response would be that this is missing the point.
People with a conscience (sadly, not everyone has one) consider Bradley Manning's treatment to be torture. According to the article, the harsh conditions of his imprisonment were meant to persuade him into making statements to implicate wikileaks in organizing the leaks. The suicide threat shit is a result of them making it hard for Manning to live inside his own mind.
Torture is torture. If they're stripped naked and put into stress positions for hours, left without human contact for days, etc, then what difference does it make if they're in a military or civilian prison? Oh and they could have pushed for the death penalty, so for anything less, Manning should have been thanking them. If someone walks up and punches you in the face, you should thank them for not stabbing you. Also, Manning didn't leak anything to the public. As everyone else knows he gave them to wikileaks to sort through. They did redact information that could be damaging to individuals and refrained from leaking most of what they received. It was one of the few acts of 'journalism' we've seen in the media for years.
There's little in common between the two. Manning's subsequent torture and isolation, however, did not have intended consequence of deterring whistleblowing. Snowden, knowing now that he had no guarantee of personal safety for alerting Americans to the actions of their gov't, was forced to run into the arms of our 'enemies.' If we'd acted righteously and humanely in Manning's case, the Snowden leaks may have been handled more effectively.
I dunno why you think he has to spy on Americans to be a hypocrite. By doing propaganda for the Russians, he is affirming that sometimes you have to compromise your lesser values in order to protect greater ones.
Exactly. There's nothing hypocritical about that. It's a decision we all have to make from time to time.
If they *could* only use this to protect Americans, that'd be great. Unfortunately, there's nothing stopping them from spying on and manipulating journalists, other politicians, spying on elections, providing information to big business campaign donors to the disadvantage of competition, etc. It's important that citizens know the capabilities of their gov't so the right checks can be put into place.
As I said elsewhere, this argument makes no sense. We've shown Americans how we deal with leakers by our handling of Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Snowden had no choice but to go to our enemies for asylum. He's an American. For him to be a hypocrite, he'd have to spy on americans. If he has to do propaganda for the Russians to survive, then who cares? It's the Russians' problem, not ours.
Our country's policy on whistleblowing has forced him to go to our enemies for asylum. Our allies would've sent him right back. The U.S.'s treatment of Bradley Manning has in that effect damaged our national security.
When considering public opinion on such matters, note that the majority of the country once believed Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, that the Vietnam War was legitimate, that slavery was okay, etc. Leaker of the pentagon papers Daniel Ellsburg was also considered a traitor in the 70's and underwent the same treatment as Snowden by the military/intelligence bureaus, but as time went on and the government propaganda machine moved on to other matters, he largely became regarded as a hero. That said, I'd be curious to hear his angle on your 'legitimate espionage' point.
Funny people complain about too much regulatory powers when it comes to cows, but ignore the neglectful lact of regulation in banks, campaign finance, environmental pollution, even food and medicine, etc, when assessing the power of our beauracracy. If an oil company had asked for this land, they'd have gotten it in a heartbeat, but this guy wasn't donating to the right politicians. It has nothing to do with regulatory overreach.
Regulation aside, it gave the guy an unfair advantage over competitors, a concept that should strike dear to the hearts of libertarians. Not every rancher is positioned next to gov't land they can 'borrow.' Did he even offer to buy the land?
I doubt it. People who go to Elliot Bay probably aren't looking for the most popular books, as it's not the kind of place you'd find stacks of Twilight novels, and Amazon is not going to have a very large inventory in Seattle to acommodate every purchase. And we might be at the point now, where the people who go to bookstores are always going to go to bookstores, no matter how convenient online shopping gets.
I was recently at Powell's in Portland (which just had major renovations) and it was crowded on a weekday afternoon. In Seattle, Elliott Bay and the University Bookstore are often hard to browse due to all the people. It's not just Amazon employees, but a lot of people just enjoy browsing books. On the other hand, the cashier lines at any of these places are not as long as they'd been in days past.
I'm sort of in that category. I got my actual name, but my only tweets (~200 of them) are actually from a russian hacker/spammer that generously disappeared and left my account intact.
t it is not just journalists who fall for the mistake: I recall seeing official documents from the department of commerce and the Federal Reserve partaking of the conflation, even regulators in statements on market volatility.
In other words, it's not just journalists who fall for the mistake, so do educated people.
His two options are to turn himself in to a government that tortured its last whistle-blower, or commit treason (if you could even call it that). He's literally being forced into the latter position.
Does it matter that Brazil and Germany aren't enemies of the U.S.? Also, he's being forced into that position since it's literally his only chance of not being tortured in U.S. prisons. I give him a pass for that.
It's not 'flamebait' just because you disagree with it. This man drinks the kool-aid that the Obama administration is serving, that if the press releases any information that could theoretically be used by our enemies, then they're traitors. When smart people read about Snowden's leaks, they realize there's nothing specific about the leaks that could possibly help any enemy, unless they were stupid enough to think the U.S. wasn't capable of doing these things. Despite what some corrupt judge says, this a clear violation of the 4th amendment and has been used to spy on the press, and, who knows, probably political opponents as well. If the NSA is 'infinitely weaker', then it's only politically, not on the basis that they can't protect the U.S. effectively, if they ever cared about that anyway. If Snowden's leaks cause political damage to the NSA and the Obama Administration then that's almost proof that, by the very nature of a democracy, the leaks were justified. If Snowden has to leak to Russia or China (which there's no evidence of) to continue to survive, then that's the result of the U.S's ridiculous policy toward leakers.
True, but he's saying that all the shootings happened in gun free zones, therefore, gun free zones have caused the shootings. What I'm saying is that there could have even been more shootings without gun free zones. I honestly don't have any reason to believe that's true or false, but if he's going to bother to make an argument, he might as well try to be logical.
This means if it comes to a revolution (and honestly, I don't know what you are all waiting for)
The purpose of the second amendment is so that we defend the second amendment. The other amendments are for hippies.
There are many great defenses for gun rights, but the second amendment one is ridiculous. Few people are suicidal enough to try and attack the U.S. government with guns.
People like to play with toys everywhere in the world. The question is not who likes to play with the toys, but who stockpiles them as a result of paranoid insecurity or in anticipation of some apocolyptic disaster. Americans no doubt rule on the latter counts. (before you mod me down, i think every man, woman and child should have a cocked and loaded gun at all times; the fault of gun violence is not the guns, but our screwed up society)
Your reasoning is faulty. We don't know how effective a ban on guns in schools are until we lift the ban on guns. If the number of school shootings go up, then it was effective. If it goes down, then it was ineffective.
I removed my facebook app, because my phone would buzz once or twice a day on random posts from 'friends' I barely know. Words With Friends kept buzzing with pointless notifications too. In short, if I can't just forget I have it and use it when i want, then I'll uninstall it.
like many sharp guys, he seems to have entered his obsessive pseudoscience and grandiosity phase
Which is exactly why this may be a fascinating language. Even if it's completely absurd and impractical, whatever ideas he's cooking up may at least be entertaining and/or thought-provoking.
Slashdot Mirror
This might say more about these judges than it does about the bot.
This is a good point. I'm guessing every single one of the entries into these Turing test competitions since 'Eliza' has been an attempt by the programmer to trick the judges. Turing's goal, however, was that the AI itself would be doing the tricking. If the programmer is spending time thinking of how to manufacture bogus spelling errors so that they bot looks human, then I'm guessing Turing's response would be that this is missing the point.
Late, I know, but read up:
The unredacted wikileaks were a security breach.
People with a conscience (sadly, not everyone has one) consider Bradley Manning's treatment to be torture. According to the article, the harsh conditions of his imprisonment were meant to persuade him into making statements to implicate wikileaks in organizing the leaks. The suicide threat shit is a result of them making it hard for Manning to live inside his own mind.
Torture is torture. If they're stripped naked and put into stress positions for hours, left without human contact for days, etc, then what difference does it make if they're in a military or civilian prison? Oh and they could have pushed for the death penalty, so for anything less, Manning should have been thanking them. If someone walks up and punches you in the face, you should thank them for not stabbing you. Also, Manning didn't leak anything to the public. As everyone else knows he gave them to wikileaks to sort through. They did redact information that could be damaging to individuals and refrained from leaking most of what they received. It was one of the few acts of 'journalism' we've seen in the media for years.
There's little in common between the two. Manning's subsequent torture and isolation, however, did not have intended consequence of deterring whistleblowing. Snowden, knowing now that he had no guarantee of personal safety for alerting Americans to the actions of their gov't, was forced to run into the arms of our 'enemies.' If we'd acted righteously and humanely in Manning's case, the Snowden leaks may have been handled more effectively.
Exactly. There's nothing hypocritical about that. It's a decision we all have to make from time to time.
If they *could* only use this to protect Americans, that'd be great. Unfortunately, there's nothing stopping them from spying on and manipulating journalists, other politicians, spying on elections, providing information to big business campaign donors to the disadvantage of competition, etc. It's important that citizens know the capabilities of their gov't so the right checks can be put into place.
As I said elsewhere, this argument makes no sense. We've shown Americans how we deal with leakers by our handling of Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Snowden had no choice but to go to our enemies for asylum. He's an American. For him to be a hypocrite, he'd have to spy on americans. If he has to do propaganda for the Russians to survive, then who cares? It's the Russians' problem, not ours.
Our country's policy on whistleblowing has forced him to go to our enemies for asylum. Our allies would've sent him right back. The U.S.'s treatment of Bradley Manning has in that effect damaged our national security.
When considering public opinion on such matters, note that the majority of the country once believed Saddam Hussein caused 9/11, that the Vietnam War was legitimate, that slavery was okay, etc. Leaker of the pentagon papers Daniel Ellsburg was also considered a traitor in the 70's and underwent the same treatment as Snowden by the military/intelligence bureaus, but as time went on and the government propaganda machine moved on to other matters, he largely became regarded as a hero. That said, I'd be curious to hear his angle on your 'legitimate espionage' point.
Funny people complain about too much regulatory powers when it comes to cows, but ignore the neglectful lact of regulation in banks, campaign finance, environmental pollution, even food and medicine, etc, when assessing the power of our beauracracy. If an oil company had asked for this land, they'd have gotten it in a heartbeat, but this guy wasn't donating to the right politicians. It has nothing to do with regulatory overreach.
Regulation aside, it gave the guy an unfair advantage over competitors, a concept that should strike dear to the hearts of libertarians. Not every rancher is positioned next to gov't land they can 'borrow.' Did he even offer to buy the land?
I doubt it. People who go to Elliot Bay probably aren't looking for the most popular books, as it's not the kind of place you'd find stacks of Twilight novels, and Amazon is not going to have a very large inventory in Seattle to acommodate every purchase. And we might be at the point now, where the people who go to bookstores are always going to go to bookstores, no matter how convenient online shopping gets.
I was recently at Powell's in Portland (which just had major renovations) and it was crowded on a weekday afternoon. In Seattle, Elliott Bay and the University Bookstore are often hard to browse due to all the people. It's not just Amazon employees, but a lot of people just enjoy browsing books. On the other hand, the cashier lines at any of these places are not as long as they'd been in days past.
I'm sort of in that category. I got my actual name, but my only tweets (~200 of them) are actually from a russian hacker/spammer that generously disappeared and left my account intact.
I like that little poke at journalists:
In other words, it's not just journalists who fall for the mistake, so do educated people.
I have a feeling it'll be closer to
while(muslims.count() > 0) {...
His two options are to turn himself in to a government that tortured its last whistle-blower, or commit treason (if you could even call it that). He's literally being forced into the latter position.
Does it matter that Brazil and Germany aren't enemies of the U.S.? Also, he's being forced into that position since it's literally his only chance of not being tortured in U.S. prisons. I give him a pass for that.
It's not 'flamebait' just because you disagree with it. This man drinks the kool-aid that the Obama administration is serving, that if the press releases any information that could theoretically be used by our enemies, then they're traitors. When smart people read about Snowden's leaks, they realize there's nothing specific about the leaks that could possibly help any enemy, unless they were stupid enough to think the U.S. wasn't capable of doing these things. Despite what some corrupt judge says, this a clear violation of the 4th amendment and has been used to spy on the press, and, who knows, probably political opponents as well. If the NSA is 'infinitely weaker', then it's only politically, not on the basis that they can't protect the U.S. effectively, if they ever cared about that anyway. If Snowden's leaks cause political damage to the NSA and the Obama Administration then that's almost proof that, by the very nature of a democracy, the leaks were justified. If Snowden has to leak to Russia or China (which there's no evidence of) to continue to survive, then that's the result of the U.S's ridiculous policy toward leakers.
Wrong. Mine was impeccable.
True, but he's saying that all the shootings happened in gun free zones, therefore, gun free zones have caused the shootings. What I'm saying is that there could have even been more shootings without gun free zones. I honestly don't have any reason to believe that's true or false, but if he's going to bother to make an argument, he might as well try to be logical.
The purpose of the second amendment is so that we defend the second amendment. The other amendments are for hippies.
There are many great defenses for gun rights, but the second amendment one is ridiculous. Few people are suicidal enough to try and attack the U.S. government with guns.
People like to play with toys everywhere in the world. The question is not who likes to play with the toys, but who stockpiles them as a result of paranoid insecurity or in anticipation of some apocolyptic disaster. Americans no doubt rule on the latter counts. (before you mod me down, i think every man, woman and child should have a cocked and loaded gun at all times; the fault of gun violence is not the guns, but our screwed up society)
Your reasoning is faulty. We don't know how effective a ban on guns in schools are until we lift the ban on guns. If the number of school shootings go up, then it was effective. If it goes down, then it was ineffective.
I removed my facebook app, because my phone would buzz once or twice a day on random posts from 'friends' I barely know. Words With Friends kept buzzing with pointless notifications too. In short, if I can't just forget I have it and use it when i want, then I'll uninstall it.
Which is exactly why this may be a fascinating language. Even if it's completely absurd and impractical, whatever ideas he's cooking up may at least be entertaining and/or thought-provoking.
Could you be more specific or you just don't have a good response?