"Our product is growing vocal about certain issues. We can't have product dissenting from our views. Brainwash half and lock out the other half. Now excuse me while I take a sip of this delicious Coca Cola, whose every refreshing sip makes meetings go better."
I think Facebook could stand a good whack in their sails over Privacy, and have a judge make it stick.
Meanwhile Oracle's lawsuit is pure platypus shit (more expensive than horse shit, and more exotic) precisely because the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
I've been interested in AI this month, and there's a really awesome application here for AI. Part of what makes people what we are is that we can't get certainty on a lot of our answers. Some guesses are good, some are spectacularly wrong. So if you build self awareness of that in the chip, it will need to use "damage control logic" to recover "socially" if it makes a mistake.
Same theme, we could get some really funny results when chips make that mistake and accidentally "get angry".
Naw, why one or the other? Just do both. We could have the manpower is we "wanted to". You know, instead of artificially limiting the field to 3 man operations.
Say that 15 people in the 100 person team design the defensive routines, which are in some ways simpler because all trick questions have low legit semantic content. Plus speaking of humans it's what siblings and college students do to each other all the time.
The other 85 members of the team can go back to regular language processing.
And I reply that a perfectly valid branch of AI is designing defensive routines against trick questions. I feel that is an area the contestants don't pay enough attention to.
You know, like the one in one of the logs "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, which is the simile?" should kick right back to the judge with "what's a simile?" and follow it with "nah, I never liked that english class crap".
Or an even crazier example, something like "would Richard Stallman fit in a breadbox?" it should kick back with "Wait, what?"
While I am sure that your friend is mostly right, it ought to be easier for the bot to remember stuff than that.
These are programs, right? Just allocate some data. Without trying to pun Facebook, just keep a file on every person from the bot's perspective, so if it understood "remember this animal" at all, then it just sets "Judge1 Likes Pink Elephants".
I know "Devil is in the details" but I often feel I could design a chatbot that would never make certain kinds of mistakes. Getting totally lost, sure, that's the signature problem of AI, but "I am a cat", no.
The concept of Anonymous is that whether it has a spokesman at all is dubious, but if they were going to talk to a "Commander X", why then give his full name? Why is that somehow important to the credentials to make sure the interview is good?
"Hi my name is X and I am in Anonymous. Here's a list of another 100 people by name and handle, and they are Anonymous too."
AT&T slid my iPhone into the GoPhone structure on AT&T. Pay as you go - I don't talk to anyone so the $100 blocks work well for me for a long time. But it's still a SmartPhone and I just go to McDonalds with the free wifi to do any Phone-y App stuff.
But all my real computing is on my home machine anyway. I only use about 5 phone apps.
Sometimes there's a fine line there, where you can't boldly tell management "you can't tell me what to do" because that risks emotional tones later. I've made a little progress by dividing work into "types of priorities" which I add a splash a bit of humor on by color coding. Example: Today you are given This Emergency To Get Out The Door. Code Yellow, right? But then This Bigger Emergency shows up and now That Needs To Get Out The Door. Code Red. Okay, so far so good. But now it gets silly. This Even Bigger Catastrophe Needs To Be Dealt With Right Now.
Really?! We already have a Yellow and a Red going. So I called it Code Purple, with nods to old Defense projects, and Royalty.
It's like the math branch dealing with infinities. Laymen get disoriented fast when you have "unlimited natural numbers", which are unlimited, then the "bigger set of unlimited real numbers", then the even bigger set of whatever it is when you allow the imaginary ones in.
So getting back, after you solve the Code Purple and the Code Red, you sometimes have to remind managers that under all the chaos and rubble the Code Yellow is there. And - wait for it - *after the Code Yellow you need time to clean up the rubble left over from the Code Purple and the Code Red.*
It's that cleanup that everyone misses. Made a custom 1-off of some document? Port the general changes back to the master template and re-post the template. Made a management change in policy? Propagate the results of that change across all the typical documents that use it. Update the company database/shared resource with the new info. Tag the 5 obsolete copies of something as Do Not Use.
Dammit, Slashdot you have some of the best commenters here but you're wasting our time making us get about 30 comments in before someone posts the correction to the flawed summaries.
So for a community that is expert on Forks, why can't we just Fork Slashdot? *We* are the "value". The only value they offer is the "summaries" and *every single one is wrong*. We lost our leader anyway, and we've all seen what the successors are up to, and Slashcode is sorta/mostly open source right? (Dunno if they bolted on something.)
So why can't we Fork Slashdot? Are we so exhausted and burnt out from the days when fighting IE6 and Vista mattered, that we just don't care anymore? Oh and by the way, every new user would start at the *bottom* of the thread so those new breeds of shills with names like SunriseVista and BoldBraveBalmer don't hijack the top real estate of the conversation. P.S. Sorry, AC's, the top 10 memes of 2003 Slashdot have to go to now. Basically no other forum on the entire net has the First Post thing, and while I get the low level "test against censorship thing", we need a *user option* to flip the entire first post thread and any matching titles to the *bottom* of the post set. Then the *second thread in* which tries to deal with the article can do some work.
Not sure what Informatics is, but Accounting (despite a few scandals) maybe with a minor in Business Management seems to hold up pretty well in the US, one of the four top tracks in the US is "Bean Counter" based.
The ruthless secret at least for the US is that the "techs" are never allowed into the Upper Mgt, it's all people skills and politics up there. It's an (ugly) art how much you can avoid doing any number crunching and get other people to produce your documents while you live in People Interaction world.
What experience brings you is low level knowledge like how to change the data file of a construction estimate when the database is miscoded to an invalid cost code so that the upload to accounting works.
Then someone decides to dump the entire software package for something cheaper so all that low level knowledge is thrown away, then you have to "hope" that anyone else will use that knowledge.
You're molded by your experiences, so no, you do not have experience at the live data level in software B when your midline professional career was spent making Software A work.
There's only so much that offline studying can teach you - it can give you a grounding, but it won't teach you straight up why that same ornery software won't export to Excel properly.
So some of your mindset has to be prepared for answering interviewers "I don't know your particular package but I understand how computers try to accomplish things". Then get ready for a month of pure hell going into overdrive and you might make it if you're lucky.
In fact, those tools are perhaps part of the way a next gen AI would emerge. I'd heard briefly of the AI winter, but the hardware is different now and those other low-level tools are part of the key.
Of course it's currently cheaper to get people from emerging countries to do certain things - however I forsee the next AI as chained Expert modules plus "middleware". Remember the Loebner challenges? Until a few years ago (if at all) the contestants went in looking to sniff out the computer programs with a deliberately low level attack that would *never be used in a normal conversation*. So the opening lines were "Can you fit Richard Stallman into a Breadbox?" and "I like traveling to and eating Chile".
In one sense, all that would be needed would be a "2 man-year" defensive module which looked for those kinds of lines then spat back a nasty message "WTF that bruh? You full of shit".
So once those snark attacks are gone, you go back to an Expert System Module for whatever topic you are discussing. Ask me about types of bait to use catching fish? I have no idea. Change a spark plug? I have no idea. So any intelligence is only as good as the expertise it has, *plus the conversational middleware to hold it together*.
So yeah - (due to inflation) another 7 Billion now could have some nice results in 5 years. IF it was deemed important.
"In my experience, humans have a tendency to overestimate their intelligence and the intelligence of our species. I specialize in automating "knowledge tasks." The people that I work with are very often surprised at just how much of what they think of as requiring human intelligence can actually be broken down into algorithms that are then applied to the data. Very little of what people actually do on a daily basis is more than the algorithmic application of knowledge.
I agree that there are some things computers cannot do just yet. Those jobs requiring creativity for instance. You could program a computer to imitate Picasso or a certain writer, but I doubt we'll be seeing computers creating truly original works of art or literature in the near future."
Unfortunately, your first paragraph slides is Insightful and your second one is Underrated as "Damn I wish this were true but watch out for my first paragraph".
Taking the writing example (because I know almost zero about painting), in one sense it is Not So Tough to create a computer that can create "truly original works of literature". We're currently playing a No True Intelligence (Scotsman) game against AI because of our crushing need not to get vaporized by automation and end up like the Matrix pods. As I've ranted elsewhere, we've purposely stunted funding into AI because of this zenophobic fear of what happens if we're not on top. The second fallacy is "zero human interaction". That gives us the comfort of watching the threatening AI crash and burn the minute it cannot get a little help. Instead, a "90-10" pattern is the devastating mix of automation.
Let's do a thought experiment. This will sound a little stilted for reasons of easy conceptual value, but then all you need is a second program to "polish" it. Here we go: (Parentheses used for pseudocode structure instead of other characters, in an attempt to avoid filters)
(Pick ConversationalPhraseOpener) You may have heard of (Introduce DeepSubject1) the Pirate Bay. (Beginner Mode On. EasyDescription Follows). That is a site where users post music. However, in most places it is only legal to post music that you own. Some or many people post music that they do not own there. This is illegal. Also, the people that own the music do not like this. Subject to differences in law by countries, if the owner of a song asks for it to be removed, it is supposed to be removed. However, this takes time and time costs money. The music owners do not like this either. (Intermediate Warmup to Story Follows) Suppose someone uploaded a song. By itself maybe no one will see it. Then no one downloads any copies. The music owner "feels he has not lost any sales". But if someone posts the exact file name or other method, then many people will see it. Many people will download copies. The music owner "feels he has lost sales". The music owner does not like this. The music owner asked a court to tell people to stop posting file names to songs they do not own. The court agreed. (Actual Story Begins Here) The entire concept of the pure theory of law requires a fair judge. When the judge is unfair, this creates a social problem point. Generally, a fair judge has nothing to gain for himself. However, today's news is that the judge made money with the plaintiff. Therefore this is not a fair judge. Rulings by an unfair judge can sometimes still be fair. However, more likely the ruling from an unfair judge is unfair. (Insert Poll Here) 75% of people polled say this ruling was unfair. The question now for a higher court is whether the judge is fair.
Y'all forgot the episode from the last season of the Slashdot Show. If you had caught up with that one, it was all about how this case was supposed to test key legal waters about this area of music copyright law which is the other 80% of the story that Submitter missed. The point was all about what qualifies as your property when it is space-shifted to the cloud vs the liability of the services.
Commentators that time remarked about how "companies as big as Google and Amazon and Apple aren't exactly stupid, so if they all open variants of these music locker services, their chief of legal must have decided that it's better than even chances to call a showdown vs the RIAA. Some other day we can all have lunch and argue about what precise finesses pass muster but that's why you guys should have heard of them.
The first step to passing a Turing Test is finding a sufficiently programmable meme. I bet any 50 of you here could build chat bots better than some ten certain memes of which he is one. Seen those posts like :
"you orange must div in the muslim death but becaus yo how babby mrdured?"
It's the flood of new accounts posting long sculpted messages on FP and the next 80 of us *are too lazy even to change the topic heading*. They're all signed in. Someone might even be spotting them $50 to get the Paid User preview of future stories so they can craft their long FP's.
Everyone keeps saying "bonch" but that feels to me more like a triple confusion of Set Theory. We definitely have shills now, more this year than any other year. But it's not clear that it's "one user", the next step is "one firm", but I can't believe that exactly one shill firm is ruling the waters - so I bet there's even 3-7 of them going on.
The AC's don't tend to post 12 line FP's with a message.
"Installing your code is (Something from the list of things that are hard)."
So in the list of things that are hard are spending a day with your mother in law, changing a tire in the rain at night, driving with one of your gears missing. Anything from that category works. It's like Mad libs.
Give 12 college kids 5 pizzas and 8 liters of cola for three days and you could have a list of 100,000 of them.
The only thing slowing this down is a thundering existential issue unlike anything we've ever seen. Suddenly we're gonna need to be reviewing the "Science Fiction" section of the lit world for some advice how to handle the rise of sentient AI.
And notice it's *only* 1.4 million. That's all? That's like a 4 person team plus a building plus equipment. It's the "Damn with faint praise" department - it's so it can make news but purposely underfund it for external meta reasons.
We would have had hard AI already if we had spent the last 10 years and the trillion dollars on it like we pushed for the moon. But no, Beating People Up is more fun.
Slashdot Mirror
(Satire)
Of course they will.
The following companies are Too Big To Fail.
Apple
Google
Facebook
Microsoft
Sorta in that order.
All the rest of the tech world is second class until someone decisively shows that one of the emperors is wearing no clothes.
So of course the results will be quite fine for Apple. Not because of any sanity. But because I said SUDO the results will be fine for Apple.
(/Satire)
(At a management meeting)
"Our product is growing vocal about certain issues. We can't have product dissenting from our views. Brainwash half and lock out the other half. Now excuse me while I take a sip of this delicious Coca Cola, whose every refreshing sip makes meetings go better."
(/Bitter)
I'm torn here.
I think Facebook could stand a good whack in their sails over Privacy, and have a judge make it stick.
Meanwhile Oracle's lawsuit is pure platypus shit (more expensive than horse shit, and more exotic) precisely because the legal system currently has no proportional-metric penalty on the size of suits. "Let's sue for 15 billion! Let's make Defense counterprove each and every one of 87 points down, and we only spend $3,000,000 on legal fees."
I've been interested in AI this month, and there's a really awesome application here for AI. Part of what makes people what we are is that we can't get certainty on a lot of our answers. Some guesses are good, some are spectacularly wrong. So if you build self awareness of that in the chip, it will need to use "damage control logic" to recover "socially" if it makes a mistake.
Same theme, we could get some really funny results when chips make that mistake and accidentally "get angry".
Naw, why one or the other? Just do both. We could have the manpower is we "wanted to". You know, instead of artificially limiting the field to 3 man operations.
Say that 15 people in the 100 person team design the defensive routines, which are in some ways simpler because all trick questions have low legit semantic content. Plus speaking of humans it's what siblings and college students do to each other all the time.
The other 85 members of the team can go back to regular language processing.
And I reply that a perfectly valid branch of AI is designing defensive routines against trick questions. I feel that is an area the contestants don't pay enough attention to.
You know, like the one in one of the logs "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana, which is the simile?" should kick right back to the judge with "what's a simile?" and follow it with "nah, I never liked that english class crap".
Or an even crazier example, something like "would Richard Stallman fit in a breadbox?" it should kick back with "Wait, what?"
While I am sure that your friend is mostly right, it ought to be easier for the bot to remember stuff than that.
These are programs, right? Just allocate some data. Without trying to pun Facebook, just keep a file on every person from the bot's perspective, so if it understood "remember this animal" at all, then it just sets "Judge1 Likes Pink Elephants".
I know "Devil is in the details" but I often feel I could design a chatbot that would never make certain kinds of mistakes. Getting totally lost, sure, that's the signature problem of AI, but "I am a cat", no.
I wanna know whether David Bowie could programs those nine lines faster than David Boies.
They could license the tune from "Get on my Horse" from Weebl and turn it into "This is our car, our car is amazing".
And I think you missed my point.
The concept of Anonymous is that whether it has a spokesman at all is dubious, but if they were going to talk to a "Commander X", why then give his full name? Why is that somehow important to the credentials to make sure the interview is good?
"Hi my name is X and I am in Anonymous. Here's a list of another 100 people by name and handle, and they are Anonymous too."
Right, this is almost like a False Flag. (Guy identified by both his full name and Anonymous Handle) at an "undisclosed location"?
So won't two calls to your friends at the agencies connect the dots? ("Hello Motor Vehicles Dept, where does this guy live and what does he drive?")
Someone is building a figurative version of that ring they use to stop forest fires around Anonymous, of which this guy is a part.
That sounds about right.
I can't wait for the next evolution to get past the current cultural deadlock that has Facebook as King.
AT&T slid my iPhone into the GoPhone structure on AT&T. Pay as you go - I don't talk to anyone so the $100 blocks work well for me for a long time. But it's still a SmartPhone and I just go to McDonalds with the free wifi to do any Phone-y App stuff.
But all my real computing is on my home machine anyway. I only use about 5 phone apps.
Sometimes there's a fine line there, where you can't boldly tell management "you can't tell me what to do" because that risks emotional tones later. I've made a little progress by dividing work into "types of priorities" which I add a splash a bit of humor on by color coding. Example: Today you are given This Emergency To Get Out The Door. Code Yellow, right? But then This Bigger Emergency shows up and now That Needs To Get Out The Door. Code Red. Okay, so far so good. But now it gets silly. This Even Bigger Catastrophe Needs To Be Dealt With Right Now.
Really?! We already have a Yellow and a Red going. So I called it Code Purple, with nods to old Defense projects, and Royalty.
It's like the math branch dealing with infinities. Laymen get disoriented fast when you have "unlimited natural numbers", which are unlimited, then the "bigger set of unlimited real numbers", then the even bigger set of whatever it is when you allow the imaginary ones in.
So getting back, after you solve the Code Purple and the Code Red, you sometimes have to remind managers that under all the chaos and rubble the Code Yellow is there. And - wait for it - *after the Code Yellow you need time to clean up the rubble left over from the Code Purple and the Code Red.*
It's that cleanup that everyone misses. Made a custom 1-off of some document? Port the general changes back to the master template and re-post the template. Made a management change in policy? Propagate the results of that change across all the typical documents that use it. Update the company database/shared resource with the new info. Tag the 5 obsolete copies of something as Do Not Use.
Dammit, Slashdot you have some of the best commenters here but you're wasting our time making us get about 30 comments in before someone posts the correction to the flawed summaries.
From what I can see in a quick glance, the summary is at least partially wrong. The "regular" Goldbach conjecture seems to apply to every *even* integer greater than 2. So your odd number question disappears into another heading, which is apparently called variously the odd-number or three-primes version of the Goldbach.
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/page.php?sort=goldbachconjecture
http://primes.utm.edu/glossary/xpage/OddGoldbachConjecture.html
(Rant)
So for a community that is expert on Forks, why can't we just Fork Slashdot? *We* are the "value". The only value they offer is the "summaries" and *every single one is wrong*. We lost our leader anyway, and we've all seen what the successors are up to, and Slashcode is sorta/mostly open source right? (Dunno if they bolted on something.)
So why can't we Fork Slashdot? Are we so exhausted and burnt out from the days when fighting IE6 and Vista mattered, that we just don't care anymore? Oh and by the way, every new user would start at the *bottom* of the thread so those new breeds of shills with names like SunriseVista and BoldBraveBalmer don't hijack the top real estate of the conversation. P.S. Sorry, AC's, the top 10 memes of 2003 Slashdot have to go to now. Basically no other forum on the entire net has the First Post thing, and while I get the low level "test against censorship thing", we need a *user option* to flip the entire first post thread and any matching titles to the *bottom* of the post set. Then the *second thread in* which tries to deal with the article can do some work.
(/Rant)
Not sure what Informatics is, but Accounting (despite a few scandals) maybe with a minor in Business Management seems to hold up pretty well in the US, one of the four top tracks in the US is "Bean Counter" based.
The ruthless secret at least for the US is that the "techs" are never allowed into the Upper Mgt, it's all people skills and politics up there. It's an (ugly) art how much you can avoid doing any number crunching and get other people to produce your documents while you live in People Interaction world.
Watch out for "Which Skills".
What experience brings you is low level knowledge like how to change the data file of a construction estimate when the database is miscoded to an invalid cost code so that the upload to accounting works.
Then someone decides to dump the entire software package for something cheaper so all that low level knowledge is thrown away, then you have to "hope" that anyone else will use that knowledge.
You're molded by your experiences, so no, you do not have experience at the live data level in software B when your midline professional career was spent making Software A work.
There's only so much that offline studying can teach you - it can give you a grounding, but it won't teach you straight up why that same ornery software won't export to Excel properly.
So some of your mindset has to be prepared for answering interviewers "I don't know your particular package but I understand how computers try to accomplish things". Then get ready for a month of pure hell going into overdrive and you might make it if you're lucky.
In fact, those tools are perhaps part of the way a next gen AI would emerge. I'd heard briefly of the AI winter, but the hardware is different now and those other low-level tools are part of the key.
Of course it's currently cheaper to get people from emerging countries to do certain things - however I forsee the next AI as chained Expert modules plus "middleware". Remember the Loebner challenges? Until a few years ago (if at all) the contestants went in looking to sniff out the computer programs with a deliberately low level attack that would *never be used in a normal conversation*. So the opening lines were "Can you fit Richard Stallman into a Breadbox?" and "I like traveling to and eating Chile".
In one sense, all that would be needed would be a "2 man-year" defensive module which looked for those kinds of lines then spat back a nasty message "WTF that bruh? You full of shit".
So once those snark attacks are gone, you go back to an Expert System Module for whatever topic you are discussing. Ask me about types of bait to use catching fish? I have no idea. Change a spark plug? I have no idea. So any intelligence is only as good as the expertise it has, *plus the conversational middleware to hold it together*.
So yeah - (due to inflation) another 7 Billion now could have some nice results in 5 years. IF it was deemed important.
"In my experience, humans have a tendency to overestimate their intelligence and the intelligence of our species. I specialize in automating "knowledge tasks." The people that I work with are very often surprised at just how much of what they think of as requiring human intelligence can actually be broken down into algorithms that are then applied to the data. Very little of what people actually do on a daily basis is more than the algorithmic application of knowledge.
I agree that there are some things computers cannot do just yet. Those jobs requiring creativity for instance. You could program a computer to imitate Picasso or a certain writer, but I doubt we'll be seeing computers creating truly original works of art or literature in the near future."
Unfortunately, your first paragraph slides is Insightful and your second one is Underrated as "Damn I wish this were true but watch out for my first paragraph".
Taking the writing example (because I know almost zero about painting), in one sense it is Not So Tough to create a computer that can create "truly original works of literature". We're currently playing a No True Intelligence (Scotsman) game against AI because of our crushing need not to get vaporized by automation and end up like the Matrix pods. As I've ranted elsewhere, we've purposely stunted funding into AI because of this zenophobic fear of what happens if we're not on top. The second fallacy is "zero human interaction". That gives us the comfort of watching the threatening AI crash and burn the minute it cannot get a little help. Instead, a "90-10" pattern is the devastating mix of automation.
Let's do a thought experiment. This will sound a little stilted for reasons of easy conceptual value, but then all you need is a second program to "polish" it. Here we go: (Parentheses used for pseudocode structure instead of other characters, in an attempt to avoid filters)
-------------------
http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/12/dutch-judge-who-ordered-pirate-bay-links-censored-found-to-be-corrupt/
Thought Experiment of Machine Assisted Article
(Find Topic I Like)
(Topic I Like = Modules Loaded As Expertise)
(IntegrityOfLaw (IsOneOfModulesLoaded)
(Story Matching TopicILike-IntegrityOfLaw)
(Pick ConversationalPhraseOpener)
You may have heard of
(Introduce DeepSubject1)
the Pirate Bay.
(Beginner Mode On. EasyDescription Follows).
That is a site where users post music. However, in most places it is only legal to post music that you own. Some or many people post music that they do not own there. This is illegal. Also, the people that own the music do not like this. Subject to differences in law by countries, if the owner of a song asks for it to be removed, it is supposed to be removed. However, this takes time and time costs money. The music owners do not like this either.
(Intermediate Warmup to Story Follows)
Suppose someone uploaded a song. By itself maybe no one will see it. Then no one downloads any copies. The music owner "feels he has not lost any sales". But if someone posts the exact file name or other method, then many people will see it. Many people will download copies. The music owner "feels he has lost sales". The music owner does not like this. The music owner asked a court to tell people to stop posting file names to songs they do not own. The court agreed.
(Actual Story Begins Here)
The entire concept of the pure theory of law requires a fair judge. When the judge is unfair, this creates a social problem point. Generally, a fair judge has nothing to gain for himself. However, today's news is that the judge made money with the plaintiff. Therefore this is not a fair judge. Rulings by an unfair judge can sometimes still be fair. However, more likely the ruling from an unfair judge is unfair.
(Insert Poll Here)
75% of people polled say this ruling was unfair.
The question now for a higher court is whether the judge is fair.
(End of Pseudo-Generated Story.)
--------------------
Y'all forgot the episode from the last season of the Slashdot Show. If you had caught up with that one, it was all about how this case was supposed to test key legal waters about this area of music copyright law which is the other 80% of the story that Submitter missed. The point was all about what qualifies as your property when it is space-shifted to the cloud vs the liability of the services.
Commentators that time remarked about how "companies as big as Google and Amazon and Apple aren't exactly stupid, so if they all open variants of these music locker services, their chief of legal must have decided that it's better than even chances to call a showdown vs the RIAA. Some other day we can all have lunch and argue about what precise finesses pass muster but that's why you guys should have heard of them.
The first step to passing a Turing Test is finding a sufficiently programmable meme. I bet any 50 of you here could build chat bots better than some ten certain memes of which he is one. Seen those posts like :
"you orange must div in the muslim death but becaus yo how babby mrdured?"
Who is possibly posting those and why?
I'll politely disagree -
It's the flood of new accounts posting long sculpted messages on FP and the next 80 of us *are too lazy even to change the topic heading*. They're all signed in. Someone might even be spotting them $50 to get the Paid User preview of future stories so they can craft their long FP's.
Everyone keeps saying "bonch" but that feels to me more like a triple confusion of Set Theory. We definitely have shills now, more this year than any other year. But it's not clear that it's "one user", the next step is "one firm", but I can't believe that exactly one shill firm is ruling the waters - so I bet there's even 3-7 of them going on.
The AC's don't tend to post 12 line FP's with a message.
If we ask for a Horse can we get the OMG Ponies! as a permanent slashdot skin?
No, sorry, it is really much easier than that.
It can be done by "emotional conversions".
"Installing your code is (Something from the list of things that are hard)."
So in the list of things that are hard are spending a day with your mother in law, changing a tire in the rain at night, driving with one of your gears missing. Anything from that category works. It's like Mad libs.
Give 12 college kids 5 pizzas and 8 liters of cola for three days and you could have a list of 100,000 of them.
Indeed.
The only thing slowing this down is a thundering existential issue unlike anything we've ever seen. Suddenly we're gonna need to be reviewing the "Science Fiction" section of the lit world for some advice how to handle the rise of sentient AI.
And notice it's *only* 1.4 million. That's all? That's like a 4 person team plus a building plus equipment. It's the "Damn with faint praise" department - it's so it can make news but purposely underfund it for external meta reasons.
We would have had hard AI already if we had spent the last 10 years and the trillion dollars on it like we pushed for the moon. But no, Beating People Up is more fun.