When I play, I'm not typically emotional over the game play, I get emotional over game bugs. Why in hell do I want my character ranting about in a safehouse because I can't access my account info? My emotions have not a thing to do with what my toon would be feeling if it were a person so this seems pretty worthless.
And yeah, I want a bunch of friggin' stickers all over my face. The video sort of reminded me of "World of World of Warcraft".
And they very nicely cleaned up the place spic and span so we wouldn't find the slightest trace of them, unlike the literally thousands of fossils that are much older from much smaller and imprintable.
That was simply rhetoric for a show. If it were an actual test given to an actual officer candidate and he cheated, he would have been failed because he didn't take the Kobayashi Maru, he took something else, and he certainly wouldn't have been given a commendation as there would assuredly have been many candidates prior to him who had attempted to cheat. Kind of the point about this one.
It should have claimed nothing. No, the task is to have the **program** fool the humans, not those setting up the test. As stated elsewhere, a Turing test uses one human and one computer and asks the human tester to decide which is which.
From Wikipedia:
The "standard interpretation" of the Turing Test, in which player C, the interrogator, is tasked with trying to determine which player - A or B - is a computer and which is a human. The interrogator is limited to using the responses to written questions in order to make the determination.
"Because to deal with most customers you need to be stupid."
Horseshit. Your bias does not constitute fact.
"Or better yet, how about customer service agents that are learned from in machine learning to be human merely following a set of rudimentary rules. It's a bad time to introducing machine learning into call centers if the humans themselves cant even pass a Turing test."
The automated customer service software I've had to listen to did a better job than those two sentences.
The idea is to create a machine that is intelligent, not to downgrade the definition of intelligent until a cat strolling across a keyboard qualifies. No, a machine pumping out gibberish like an infant does not qualify.
Not quite GA, but other brands had some good works; Gold Key, Western Publishing, Tower, Red Circle, etc... even Archie. Mostly they didn't stay around because they didn't enter the steroid/big tit arms race DC and Marvel did.
It's not. Male humans have a pretty good reflex for snapping the dominant knee inward to block said kick. Done correctly, by the way, the knee will then shatter the metatarsals.
And? Sometimes sexism is true. Men *can* take a punch better. More muscle mass with a different structure and heavier bones. If an average man punches a average woman in the chest, she will move backwards. If he punches an equal weight man in the chest, not so much. If the same woman punches the same man in the chest, she'll be the one moving. It's called physics. And if you want to counter by pulling some highly trained woman into the scenario, I get to use Bruce Lee.
You're greatly underestimating the human body. There are documented instances of humans taking on bulls, leopards and even a tiger, one on one without weapons and winning. We also have a vastly superior brain allowing us to project a bull's trajectory and sidestep it or, as the Minoans did, literally take it by the horns and use its goring actions to flip us up, somersault and land behind it safely. We're not nearly as soft as you seem to believe.
"AI's can usually be tricked by injecting surreal elements to the conversation or asking about current events, or recent things."
Completely unnecessary. Simply carry on a conversation that requires a building on previous discussion. Every one I've ever encountered failed within a dozen exchanges. The most common technique the "AI" programmers use is to pretend to deflect the conversation. Usually quite lamely.
However, we have seen here on/. literally hundreds of times people saying "have you published a peer reviewed paper on that?" as if it should end someone's argument.
This should lay bare the bullcrap that that particular response is. Peer reviewed publication is, as you have said, only the start. Only once years of scrutiny and **reproduction of results** has happened is the hypothesis confirmed. The second part actually being the more important.
Apologists are boring too. His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today. Obama: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
That is: I will respond to the article as if it's actually asking what it says it is.
If there is an idiot on the team, said idiot should be removed from the team. There are a number of ethical reasons for this. Unless you're implementing the Game of LIfe for the umpteenth time, the project does not have a trivial goal. Anyone else working on the project is perforce pulling said idiot's weight, which means they are being rewarded less than they should be, the project is being completed at a lesser rate than it should be and the project will be filled with more errors than it should be. You're also feeding into the idiot's self-perception that they are competent in that position and they will then fight being moved harder and will exert pressure for promotion that is unwarranted. You're also displaying a willingness to bring the quality of everything else involved down just to spare an idiot's feelings.
Short answer, You're promoting blue ribbons for all.
Y'all, y'ern, y'uns,. Now try deep Ozarks where "Don't care to." and "Don't come onto me." don't at all mean what you'd normally think (amongst other unique phrases).
Not even close. Filling sodas is a portion of one person's work, not a friggin' position. Furthermore, most fast food eateries just give you a cup and you fill it yourself. This is how these things get so over exaggerated.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. It works or it doesn't. They knew it didn't, yet they purblished.
When I play, I'm not typically emotional over the game play, I get emotional over game bugs. Why in hell do I want my character ranting about in a safehouse because I can't access my account info? My emotions have not a thing to do with what my toon would be feeling if it were a person so this seems pretty worthless.
And yeah, I want a bunch of friggin' stickers all over my face. The video sort of reminded me of "World of World of Warcraft".
But very, very efficient.
And they very nicely cleaned up the place spic and span so we wouldn't find the slightest trace of them, unlike the literally thousands of fossils that are much older from much smaller and imprintable.
The two are very *related* issues. You're simply be pedantic.
That was simply rhetoric for a show. If it were an actual test given to an actual officer candidate and he cheated, he would have been failed because he didn't take the Kobayashi Maru, he took something else, and he certainly wouldn't have been given a commendation as there would assuredly have been many candidates prior to him who had attempted to cheat. Kind of the point about this one.
Made for a good scene though.
From Wikipedia:
This was not that.
"Because to deal with most customers you need to be stupid."
Horseshit. Your bias does not constitute fact.
"Or better yet, how about customer service agents that are learned from in machine learning to be human merely following a set of rudimentary rules. It's a bad time to introducing machine learning into call centers if the humans themselves cant even pass a Turing test."
The automated customer service software I've had to listen to did a better job than those two sentences.
The idea is to create a machine that is intelligent, not to downgrade the definition of intelligent until a cat strolling across a keyboard qualifies. No, a machine pumping out gibberish like an infant does not qualify.
Actually why I included Western Publishing. Cowboy stories and my fav, Torok Son of Stone.
Not quite GA, but other brands had some good works; Gold Key, Western Publishing, Tower, Red Circle, etc... even Archie. Mostly they didn't stay around because they didn't enter the steroid/big tit arms race DC and Marvel did.
And you seem to have a strange notion of "counter argument".
And when they strike, they pound, not punch.
It's not. Male humans have a pretty good reflex for snapping the dominant knee inward to block said kick. Done correctly, by the way, the knee will then shatter the metatarsals.
And? Sometimes sexism is true. Men *can* take a punch better. More muscle mass with a different structure and heavier bones. If an average man punches a average woman in the chest, she will move backwards. If he punches an equal weight man in the chest, not so much. If the same woman punches the same man in the chest, she'll be the one moving. It's called physics. And if you want to counter by pulling some highly trained woman into the scenario, I get to use Bruce Lee.
You're greatly underestimating the human body. There are documented instances of humans taking on bulls, leopards and even a tiger, one on one without weapons and winning. We also have a vastly superior brain allowing us to project a bull's trajectory and sidestep it or, as the Minoans did, literally take it by the horns and use its goring actions to flip us up, somersault and land behind it safely. We're not nearly as soft as you seem to believe.
"... and women were breeding machines that did as they were told."
Wow, had no idea you were that old.
As for the rest, Alpha male preference in females says that's a pipe dream.
"AI's can usually be tricked by injecting surreal elements to the conversation or asking about current events, or recent things."
Completely unnecessary. Simply carry on a conversation that requires a building on previous discussion. Every one I've ever encountered failed within a dozen exchanges. The most common technique the "AI" programmers use is to pretend to deflect the conversation. Usually quite lamely.
However, we have seen here on /. literally hundreds of times people saying "have you published a peer reviewed paper on that?" as if it should end someone's argument.
This should lay bare the bullcrap that that particular response is. Peer reviewed publication is, as you have said, only the start. Only once years of scrutiny and **reproduction of results** has happened is the hypothesis confirmed. The second part actually being the more important.
Apologists are boring too. His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today. Obama: "I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
That is: I will respond to the article as if it's actually asking what it says it is.
If there is an idiot on the team, said idiot should be removed from the team. There are a number of ethical reasons for this. Unless you're implementing the Game of LIfe for the umpteenth time, the project does not have a trivial goal. Anyone else working on the project is perforce pulling said idiot's weight, which means they are being rewarded less than they should be, the project is being completed at a lesser rate than it should be and the project will be filled with more errors than it should be. You're also feeding into the idiot's self-perception that they are competent in that position and they will then fight being moved harder and will exert pressure for promotion that is unwarranted. You're also displaying a willingness to bring the quality of everything else involved down just to spare an idiot's feelings.
Short answer, You're promoting blue ribbons for all.
"calculate the amount of time that occured since the beginning of the year"
We can already do that.
Y'all, y'ern, y'uns,. Now try deep Ozarks where "Don't care to." and "Don't come onto me." don't at all mean what you'd normally think (amongst other unique phrases).
Nope.
Not even close. Filling sodas is a portion of one person's work, not a friggin' position. Furthermore, most fast food eateries just give you a cup and you fill it yourself. This is how these things get so over exaggerated.