While it is great that there are algorithms that exist to suggest movies, or books to get...I would hardly consider it to be artificial intelligence Sorry, but you're wrong. Finding relationships between data sets is pretty much a fundamental of AI research.
It only tests whether a computer can effectively pretend to be a human. This has almost no useful application in, for example, a system whose goal is to locate relationships in a data set.
Still, if the system were to find new, unintentional ways to index data, it would be considered AI. It's a lot bigger field than just emulating human interaction (which is, frankly, not nearly the most useful application you could come up with).
Actually, I detest them, but I do think there is a lot of untapped research potential there, because of the sheer number of people who are willing to sit there for hours on end, waiting for npcs to respawn. With a good learning algorithm and enough entropy (causing 'genetic mutations'), those npcs will eventually find a few optimal ways to react to their environments, prolonging their own lives. They just need people to coach them through it.
With that many users, you'd get enough variation between the newb that's killing them for experience to the maxed-out-character that blows up everything in his way.
It would be really cool if Blizzard let some serious AI programmers go nuts, so that the NPCs try to maximize their own lifespans, rather than just dying and respawning.
Maybe for enough money, they'd let you set up a few thousand bot-controlled characters?
There's an important distinction to be made here- AI has two basic sub-fields: strong AI and weak AI. Strong AI research (computers that think like humans) has been more or less abandoned because it doesn't have a lot of practical application, or at least it isn't worth the money that it will cost to create.
Weak AI research (pathfinding algorithms, problem solving, expert systems, etc) is very much alive and kicking- anti-spambots, anti-anti-spambots, malware, amazon.com's recommendation system, google's indexing, etc.
In fact, weak AI implementations are getting more and more common every day. It's pretty safe to say that we are already 'there', though there will certainly be more huge advances in the future.
In my opinion, the problem with strong AI research is that we are arbitrarily defining rules and expectations. For example, if we were to accurately model the physical world, all we'd have to do is set up a few evolutionary bots to learn about their environment, and give them a few billion generations.
However, just like we can't predict the paths that biological evolution will take, we have no guarantee that computer thinking will follow the same path that we will, (in fact, I would bet on it not following that path). Thus, 'Intelligence' in the simulated world would probably look nothing like we expect.
The problems here are questions of scale and our own understanding of physics. The physics problem first:
We're constantly redefining our understanding of the world. This is a good thing, but it makes it hard to model the world when the rules keep changing. If we were to program a 'matrix' for the AI program to develop in, there would be arbitrary rules that could not be broken. The program may find ways to circumvent them anyways (hacking its own world, essentially), but those solutions would not map to the 'real world', and would not be useful for creating programs that can interact with humans in that world.
As far as I can tell, you can't train AI software in a simulated world. It should be noted that the AI of systems that live their whole lives in the simulated world (MMORPGs come to mind) is actually very advanced. This brings me to the other issue-
You can train a program to interact in the human world, like IRC bots, search engine algorithms, etc. The problem here is that the humans have billions of years of built in programming. I'm fairly confident that if a human were to sit on IRC talking to a well-coded bot for a few billion years, that bot would be able to carry on a pretty good conversation, but the amount of time that we currently give those systems in their 'learning phase' is miniscule compared to the size of our own.
Interestingly, this is pretty much exactly what the computer system in 'The Hitchiker's Guide' does.
Depends. Are you a seriously-hot blond nympho with huge tits who happens to have a thing for senior software engineers? Even if he was, I'd still kick him out.
I can shoot someone 3 times or more with a handgun at point blank range before they even reach me By definition, if it's at point blank range, they've already reached you.
I keep hearing that this is turning into a business model, but has anybody really figured out the economics of it? All those lawyers, plus the risks they're taking every time they go to court, plus having to pay out a chunk of the winnings to the artists, the labels, etc....
I find it much more likely that the whole thing is an expense for the record companies, but that it is worth it to save their dying business model.
But I also have no real numbers on how many cases actually settle, lose, win, etc., much less the cost of filing the suits in the first place.
He didn't try to hire another coder. He tried to hire the application's maintainers, who were obviously too busy or otherwise not interested. There are lots of other programmers out there.
Bribery may be a bit much, but the point stands. For some reason, that bug wasn't a high priority. They are under no obligation to fix it, no matter how much he offers to pay.
He can always hire another coder to fix it. Ideally, he'd then send a patch to the original team, but again, he's under no obligation to do so either.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but after a theory is tested and proven enough times (42, I believe), it is considered a law, (eg. Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't remember either... I closed my eyes about 20 minutes in.
Or rather, it's very limited.
It only tests whether a computer can effectively pretend to be a human. This has almost no useful application in, for example, a system whose goal is to locate relationships in a data set.
Still, if the system were to find new, unintentional ways to index data, it would be considered AI. It's a lot bigger field than just emulating human interaction (which is, frankly, not nearly the most useful application you could come up with).
Actually, I detest them, but I do think there is a lot of untapped research potential there, because of the sheer number of people who are willing to sit there for hours on end, waiting for npcs to respawn. With a good learning algorithm and enough entropy (causing 'genetic mutations'), those npcs will eventually find a few optimal ways to react to their environments, prolonging their own lives. They just need people to coach them through it.
With that many users, you'd get enough variation between the newb that's killing them for experience to the maxed-out-character that blows up everything in his way.
It would be really cool if Blizzard let some serious AI programmers go nuts, so that the NPCs try to maximize their own lifespans, rather than just dying and respawning.
Maybe for enough money, they'd let you set up a few thousand bot-controlled characters?
There's an important distinction to be made here- AI has two basic sub-fields: strong AI and weak AI. Strong AI research (computers that think like humans) has been more or less abandoned because it doesn't have a lot of practical application, or at least it isn't worth the money that it will cost to create.
Weak AI research (pathfinding algorithms, problem solving, expert systems, etc) is very much alive and kicking- anti-spambots, anti-anti-spambots, malware, amazon.com's recommendation system, google's indexing, etc.
In fact, weak AI implementations are getting more and more common every day. It's pretty safe to say that we are already 'there', though there will certainly be more huge advances in the future.
In my opinion, the problem with strong AI research is that we are arbitrarily defining rules and expectations. For example, if we were to accurately model the physical world, all we'd have to do is set up a few evolutionary bots to learn about their environment, and give them a few billion generations.
However, just like we can't predict the paths that biological evolution will take, we have no guarantee that computer thinking will follow the same path that we will, (in fact, I would bet on it not following that path). Thus, 'Intelligence' in the simulated world would probably look nothing like we expect.
The problems here are questions of scale and our own understanding of physics. The physics problem first:
We're constantly redefining our understanding of the world. This is a good thing, but it makes it hard to model the world when the rules keep changing. If we were to program a 'matrix' for the AI program to develop in, there would be arbitrary rules that could not be broken. The program may find ways to circumvent them anyways (hacking its own world, essentially), but those solutions would not map to the 'real world', and would not be useful for creating programs that can interact with humans in that world.
As far as I can tell, you can't train AI software in a simulated world. It should be noted that the AI of systems that live their whole lives in the simulated world (MMORPGs come to mind) is actually very advanced. This brings me to the other issue-
You can train a program to interact in the human world, like IRC bots, search engine algorithms, etc. The problem here is that the humans have billions of years of built in programming. I'm fairly confident that if a human were to sit on IRC talking to a well-coded bot for a few billion years, that bot would be able to carry on a pretty good conversation, but the amount of time that we currently give those systems in their 'learning phase' is miniscule compared to the size of our own.
Interestingly, this is pretty much exactly what the computer system in 'The Hitchiker's Guide' does.
You had netcat? I had to whistle into a telephone.
My dad and I built a 10x10 kennel for my dog once, she's part husky, part wolf.
She climbed out.
We rebuilt it with taller fences, which she dug under.
We poured concrete for the floor, and she figured out how to work the latch
Now there's a carabiner in the latch, but she's better trained at this point, and it isn't an issue anymore.
Now try putting fences around an entire ranch.
I'm confused...
did you shoot at a space shuttle?
I keep hearing that this is turning into a business model, but has anybody really figured out the economics of it? All those lawyers, plus the risks they're taking every time they go to court, plus having to pay out a chunk of the winnings to the artists, the labels, etc....
I find it much more likely that the whole thing is an expense for the record companies, but that it is worth it to save their dying business model.
But I also have no real numbers on how many cases actually settle, lose, win, etc., much less the cost of filing the suits in the first place.
touche
It helps us keep track of which release we're currently working from.
Consider yourself a beta tester for democracy 1.0 (unstable)
I'm thinking about forking it.
Nor were you. ;)
He didn't try to hire another coder. He tried to hire the application's maintainers, who were obviously too busy or otherwise not interested. There are lots of other programmers out there.
I can't help noticing you don't have a study to back that up.
Bribery may be a bit much, but the point stands. For some reason, that bug wasn't a high priority. They are under no obligation to fix it, no matter how much he offers to pay.
He can always hire another coder to fix it. Ideally, he'd then send a patch to the original team, but again, he's under no obligation to do so either.
I can understand your frustration, but if you didn't read the box, please don't complain.
'THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND...IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT
HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM'
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but after a theory is tested and proven enough times (42, I believe), it is considered a law, (eg. Law of Gravity, Law of Thermodynamics, etc).
...unless FSM put the above in for reasons that only His Sticky Omnipotence understands.
You can't disprove Creationism with lack of evidence. That's why it is religious theory, not scientific.
If you can't get one, you're not leet enough to be invited.
Apparently not
The question had nothing to do with the implementation. The GP asked how typing affects security.
The point still stands- you can use type conversion errors to circumvent some input validation techniques.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Type+conversion+error%22+attack
Dynamic type conversions are a pretty common way to exploit SQL injection holes and circumvent input validation.
My ubuntu installs all updated to RC1 of Firefox last week.
So... why are you still on Firefox 3b5?