As I read TFA, it appears that the entity to be compared with the AI graduate student is to be the original graduate student upon which the AI one is based. Given that the original graduate student knows what information he provided to the AI version, isn't there a risk that the spirit of the Turing Test could be violated by dumbing down the graduate student rather than smarting up the AI one (i.e., the real graduate student is "in on" the gag, and might collaborate in trying to promote success)? The fame for being associated with the first successful passer of even a subset of the Turing Test could be substantial enough to motivate such behavior.
Turing, of course, had this hole covered, as his proposal didn't suggest comparing against a specific human, but rather against the user's accumulated insight into what constitutes human intelligence. Kind of prevents cheating.
Global warming is something of a controversial subject in some circles (like mine, where this has been one of the coldest winters in a very long time). So won't the plaintiffs have to *PROVE* both that "global warming" is (at least to a significant degree) man-made and that the defendants bear significant culpability for it, in order to win the lawsuit? The outcome could be rather interesting to those debating the global warming topic.
I'm down for the advertising discussion, but I'm interested in a slightly different focus: Why are the ads in broadcasting always SO MUCH LOUDER than the program material they interrupt? Is that circumstance reasonable/acceptable?
- tired of running the gain down and then up every time i encounter an ad
Re: "if I was an enterprising kid, I'd take a bunch of pictures of my friends with EMPTY cans...and call a lawyer!!"
I know of a young man who works in a recycling plant. As a joke, he posed with an empty beer bottle as if he were drinking it. The picture was posted to a similar web site. Consequence? He got suspended from varsity sports for several months, in spite of the aid of legal counsel.
The message? Attorneys are likely to be unable to influence the outcome of school disciplinary actions, because (1) the judgments and consequences are not subject to due process and (2) if such a case winds up in court, the school district can retain much more legal horsepower than the defendant can, because the school district has the power to tax the populace to pay for it.
This is very like descriptions of police states: One must avoid completely any appearance of impropriety or be adjudged guilty. If you must do something that violates a school rule (or even appears to do so), keep it private: Don't take pictures or boast publicly about it, because the Gestapo will get you!
Now, if I wanted to serve as a central point for dissemination of highly important and urgent information to a world of computer experts, I'd probably provide an RSS or Atom feed, wouldn't you think? CERT (a subset of FEMA) doesn't. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
Turing, of course, had this hole covered, as his proposal didn't suggest comparing against a specific human, but rather against the user's accumulated insight into what constitutes human intelligence. Kind of prevents cheating.
So maybe we'll have to return to the use of radio and fax to share the truth with Japan.
Global warming is something of a controversial subject in some circles (like mine, where this has been one of the coldest winters in a very long time). So won't the plaintiffs have to *PROVE* both that "global warming" is (at least to a significant degree) man-made and that the defendants bear significant culpability for it, in order to win the lawsuit? The outcome could be rather interesting to those debating the global warming topic.
I'm down for the advertising discussion, but I'm interested in a slightly different focus: Why are the ads in broadcasting always SO MUCH LOUDER than the program material they interrupt? Is that circumstance reasonable/acceptable?
- tired of running the gain down and then up every time i encounter an ad
Re: "if I was an enterprising kid, I'd take a bunch of pictures of my friends with EMPTY cans...and call a lawyer!!"
I know of a young man who works in a recycling plant. As a joke, he posed with an empty beer bottle as if he were drinking it. The picture was posted to a similar web site. Consequence? He got suspended from varsity sports for several months, in spite of the aid of legal counsel.
The message? Attorneys are likely to be unable to influence the outcome of school disciplinary actions, because (1) the judgments and consequences are not subject to due process and (2) if such a case winds up in court, the school district can retain much more legal horsepower than the defendant can, because the school district has the power to tax the populace to pay for it.
This is very like descriptions of police states: One must avoid completely any appearance of impropriety or be adjudged guilty. If you must do something that violates a school rule (or even appears to do so), keep it private: Don't take pictures or boast publicly about it, because the Gestapo will get you!
Now, if I wanted to serve as a central point for dissemination of highly important and urgent information to a world of computer experts, I'd probably provide an RSS or Atom feed, wouldn't you think? CERT (a subset of FEMA) doesn't. Why?