Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 154

by phantomfive (#47422527) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

The criteria of the test were defined, the criteria of the test was passed. Please share your superior intellect and explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed.

Because the results are not reproducible. The logical conclusion is that there was some problem with the experiment.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 2) 154

by phantomfive (#47422057) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

That's because they keep shifting the goalposts.

I don't think "a chatbot isn't AI and hasn't been since the 1960s when they were invented, whether you call it a doctor or a Ukrainian kid doesn't make any difference" counts as shifting the goalposts.

Furthermore, reproducible results are an important part of science. Let him release his source code, or explain his algorithm so we can reproduce it. Anything less is not science.

Comment: Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (Score 1) 305

by phantomfive (#47421403) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Well, you know it's not going to happen when they say, "Up to 60 percent of power might come from nuclear sources." I don't think either major party in America would support that, and other countries are actively hostile to nuclear.

However, more interesting is the idea that every new car sold in America will be electric. For that to happen, it would mean electric cars are cost competitive with gasoline cars. I can't see from the paper why they think it will happen within that timeframe.

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 2) 324

by phantomfive (#47416121) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

Basically the survey found that the experts in the field have 97% consensus

Problem is that skeptical scientists such as Richard Lindzen agree with that 'consensus', because the question is too narrow. Ask something more interesting like, "should we replace all our coal power with renewables because to prevent AGW?" or "is AGW going to be catastrophic?" and you will find that there is no consensus.

But I think they can be constructed to be close enough to determine a reasonable outcome.

You didn't clarify what you mean by 'reasonable outcome,' but this paper in Nature demonstrates that the climate models have serious errors.

Comment: Re:Apparently dedication = autism (Score 1) 497

by phantomfive (#47415287) Attached to: Normal Humans Effectively Excluded From Developing Software

BUT, these kind of things do require a very unusual amount of dedication to learning a thing

If only we had a system where people could go for four years, and focus primarily on learning something. Maybe that's too much focus? We could add these things called 'dorms' where you can stay and have fun with other people.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly