Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 279

by Agent0013 (#47424805) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

There's been a movement recently suggesting that true AI can only exist in an embodied system. I initially thought that was bollocks, but the more I think about it the more it makes sense. You may be able to make a machine with the capacity to learn as well as a human, but without a means to "experiment" in the real world how would it ever learn about something like the behaviour of a bucket of water?

I have thought this might be true for a few years now. The human brain starts out not even knowing how to move the limbs it is connected to. It cannot process the visual information it receives. It has to figure everything out from experience with the world by initiating an action and seeing what changes happen to the inputs. And there are millions and millions of input signals coming in every second. From every touch upon the skin when the arm is moved and the nerves that give proprioception to the sense of air movement upon the hair follicles and the vision system seeing the arm move. There is just soo much data coming in that feeds the brain constantly. I think it is quite necessary to have all that for a machine to have intelligence.

Comment: Re:philosophical discussion only not science (Score 1) 279

by Agent0013 (#47424731) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

One of my friends is a philosophy post-doc and he told me many times that in philosophy the gold standard for intelligence is intelligent behaviour.

If intelligent behaviour was all that was required, then a person remotely connected into that computer could do the intelligent behaviour and you would be able to call the computer intelligent. I think more is needed than that.

It also isn't true that the Lovelace test is more rigorous. To pass it you must produce something truly original but presumably non-random. I can only say good luck getting any human to pass this test.

I don't understand what you think original means. I have seen my young daughter draw lots of original drawings over and over. She even created a bird-deer in some of them, deer with 4 long skinny legs with bird feet on the ends of them. I certainly didn't tell her about bird-deer. She created them in her mind, drew them, and then told us what they were. I would love to see a computer come up with something like a bird-deer. I guess something like Creatures or Spore might come close with the genetic algorithms or something like that.

Comment: Re:philosophical discussion only not science (Score 1) 279

by Agent0013 (#47424689) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

So, it's creative (I haven't told it how to choose), and potentially unexplainable (memory location may have been previously used by a totally different process if mem is wiped clean).

So not only have you proposed that random output is somehow to be described as creativity, you have also said this is unexplainable and then proceeded to explain how it works. Nice!!!

Comment: Re:Short black with one (Score 1) 192

by Agent0013 (#47255233) Attached to: How To Make Espresso In Space

I get completely RAW milk straight from the cow. I even have to bring my own jars to put it in as the law is that the farmer cannot sell it in containers. It lasts a full week in the fridge before it starts to go off. I have even used the cream for a few days more than a week.

I guess if you got milk from the store it would have spent a few days sitting on the shelf before you buy it, so perhaps it isn't that big of a difference.

So are you saying your milk in the store is unpasteurized? That's awesome if you have raw milk in the store. The US has made that illegal. You have to go through some extreme steps to be able to sell milk that is not pasteurized here. And don't even think of taking it across state lines!

Comment: Re:For fuck sake, the IRS isn't what you think it (Score 1) 372

(marijuana was originally regulated via tax stamps, similar to the way machine guns and destructive devices are currently regulated)

Close, but not quite similar. They made the law mandating the tax stamps for marijuana, but they never made the stamps. The real goal was to make it illegal to use, so they just made it impossible to use it legally.

Comment: Re:Please make it a mental one (Score 1) 625

by Agent0013 (#47229815) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

A bowl of Cap'n Crunch with skim milk? 300 calories. Add some sugar to that, and just having these will put you over 600 calories

Not sure why you would add sugar to Cap'n Crunch, isn't it sweet enough already? Anyway, the skim milk is the wrong way to go. Studies have found that people who drink skim milk are generally fatter than the people who drink whole milk. When kids start drinking milk at age two, the ones who drink whole milk keep their healthy weight, while the ones who drink skim milk get overweight.

There is a big misconception that fat makes you fat. Fat is the signal for your brain to know you are full. It is also the ingredient used to make the brain. Avoiding it is just listening to old wives' tales from people who think eating fish will turn you into a fish or some non-sense like that. Dietary science has been confused and mistaken for a long time, but it seems there are studies that are finally looking at it properly.

Comment: Re: This reminds me of a great Simpsons episode (Score 1) 625

by Agent0013 (#47229717) Attached to: EU's Top Court May Define Obesity As a Disability

It is basically as you say, burn more calories than you eat, but with some extra complicating factors with the way your body and brain do all the chemical processes. I have come to believe that using more natural is better than the processed. So I cook with real butter or bacon fat, not the fake stuff. And when I drink soda I get the sugar one, not the diet one. I find it easier to eat in moderation this way. Fat is a big signal in the brain to make you feel full. Avoiding it has been shown to make people get fat. Even two year old kids that start drinking milk in the studies get fatter if it is non-fat milk than if they drink the full-fat milk.

But even more than the calories in is the calories burned. If you can increase you exercise levels by a bit that helps much more than reducing how much food you eat. It helps your body get into better shape, and then things like the metabolism or whatever work better also. And any muscle you build will help for as long as you keep it on to burn more calories, even when not using them. Of course you can overeat so far as to make your exercise useless. But in general I think people focus too much on the calories coming in and not enough on keeping active.

"No, no, I don't mind being called the smartest man in the world. I just wish it wasn't this one." -- Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, WATCHMEN

Working...