*Now* the conversation is over...
Take a sample of 1000 people and have them be judges and contestants in the turing test and see if a machine is as likely to be voted human as a real human. **I don't see whats so unscientific about this.**
Like I said, I don't take this shit seriously...this is ridiculous & it hurts our industry.
Nitpicking my language (it's "consciousness" not "life" even though you knew what I meant by context) doesn't disprove my points.
Conversation over. You need to rethink all of this...
Look man, thanks for typing that out but you admit your contradiction:
By Turing logic, if I can make you think a steaming pile of shit is a steak dinner, and you eat it, then even though you at shit to **you** it actually was a steak dinner.
A pile of shit is always a pile of shit, wether or not **you** think it's a steak dinner.
So something is "conscious" if, like Turing says, it can make a person think it's conscious...you say as much here:
The fact that it is more convincing (to human perception) when data asks for rights is what makes the difference.
**according to which human???** this is the opposite of science.
It's about structure & function not being able to fool some dumbass.
t's a stupid, facile, completely arbitrary goalpost...it's whatever you want to make up...it's **not verifyable** and therefore not scientific
I'm not going to sit with you and argue Turing. It's bullshit to define "machinic life" as anything that can cause a human to think it's "alive"
pass the turing test
exactly the problem. the "turning test" is a facile demonstration...not a scientific "test" at all.
Do yourself a favor and ignore Turing completely when thinking about computing.
A government can grant civil rights to a rock. That doesn't make it intelligent.
I didn't say it would make it "intelligent"...it would do just as I said, give it legal rights. Just as giving Commander Data legal rights doesn't make it any more or less "human"...confering rights doesn't change the molecules of the thing.
Your analogy is ridiculous b/c it is irrational. If a being like Data was created, which mimics human thought on the most basic level (which, as TFA describes, we don't even have the theory to contexualize such a thing, let alone the ability to make it)...if we made it, there would be a ration question of what kind of rights it has.
It's rational to ask if Data should have rights if he existed...it's not rational to ask if a rock should have rights. Your analogy fails.
Both the "turing test" and "intelligence" are matters of ****HUMAN PERCEPTION****
Commander Data is a fictional character. The character occurs in a ****context**** where humanity has made technological jumps that enable ***storytelling****
I absolutely hate that really, really intelligent people are reduced to this horrible of an analogy to comprehend what's happening in AI....and I *love* Star Trek! I'm a trekkie!
Even if we had solved these problems and a present day Noonian Soong had already built a robot with the potential for human equivalent intelligence – it still might not have enough time to develop adult-equivalent intelligence by 2029'
So all engineering & physical science, biology, neuroscience, physics...all of this is 'not a problem' anymore in this random context....**still** this Data still is nothing more than an immitation of a human. Different capabilities sure, but still a programmed machine.
The only thing that can make a machine have "civil rights" like Data was granted in his court hearing would be...for a government to declare that beings like Data have **human rights**...it's a question of politics not programming.
So we need to recontextualize all of "artificial intelligence" work to be about **accomplishing a task** not some abstract "Commander Data Milestone"
And we all need to just ignore Kurzweil forever.
you could X into PP or Y....
yeah...so you're right that theoretically factors similar to that are involved in non-verbal communication
but you're waaay waaaay off still...you have to pick...are we comparing calk-only to **anything a computer could do?**
b/c...um...there's are **tons of whiteboard/chalkboard programs** that are a visual representation of a blank board you "write" on with a mouse
do you understand that? a computer can simulate a white/chalk board...everything except the dust
so the factors & characteristics you are attempting to put into a testable hypothesis are improperly chosen...those are the most salient factors & you're mixing cause/effect
your error is trying to make that comparison at all...
We don't need to make an archane, arbitrary ban on all "powerpoint"...it's stupid for several reasons
1. "powerpoint" is a software program...computer projectors can project any image, including **other presentation software** or a web browser...to ban one specific software is absolutely foolish, and to ban using all computer projection is moreso
2. no one "needs" any piece of software or display equipment. they are all ****TOOLS FOR COMMUNICATION**** to be used as needed.
3. the problem of "bad powerpoints" cannot be solved by banning the use of "powerpoint" (w/e that means)....it will only be sovled by professors & other presentors ***learning how to use technology effectively in public speaking***
What TFA is suggesting is that communicating by chalkboard **has fundamental differences** from communicating by PP, in the same way (if not to the same severity) that communicating by in-person lecture is fundamentally different from communicating by a video on YouTube
right...you're in the ballpark but the comparisons are off-angle
chalk-only (or whiteboard) vs ppt is the wrong context that causes confusion
1. it's a false dichotomy...both can be used
2. disctinction must be made between using a 'projected computer screen' and the **software** called "powerpoint"...I can show a youtube video in a ppt, or I can show it in a browser, or I can download the video to the hard drive....it's all video!
3. it's not a question of "features"...we're not buying a fsking BMW here...this is about channels of communication...how wide & how much noise is there?
In the context of any presentation, the speaker uses **all the tools available to their most funcitonal**...that's it...
You can't get around the fact that the whole "problem" of "bad powerpoint" is due to the speakers themselves not undertanding how to use a **more complex** communication channel effectively
You know i have won several best talks/presentations awards at some pretty big conferences.
No, I didn't know that, but I made pains to say specifically in my post: " I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional."....
so...I continue my lamentations....srsly we need to be able to directly contradict each other without it being personal
you ARE using a less complex communication channel when you go 'chalk-only'....and dude i'm old-school, for real....but it's arbitrary and re-inforces bad problem solving skills to just ***not use*** something b/c you can't handle it's complexity
making archane "no powerpoint" rules shows that you surrender to the complexity of the software....and its the students that suffer
also, I've worked as a prof myself & in our current academic climate a prof must **seek out** helpful feedback...with positive effort...students are conditioned not to make constructive criticism!!!!
dude, you watch an *average amount of TV*
just own it
stop lying to yourself & others about who you are...i think its time to come out of the entertainment closet.
your friends/loved ones already know about your habits...all you're doing is holding yourself back from what you enjoy & being a wimpy bitch
why be ashamed & hide who you are???
ppt vs chalk-only is a false dichotomy
you can use **both**
this whole thing is about a lack of ability to use a complex communication channel effectively
"powerpoint" is a brand name for a computer program that can make visual computer images & text
**images & text**
that's all powerpoint is...
You are depriving students of a very effective communication channel b/c you don't know how to use it properly. I'm not saying TFA is "wrong" or that you personally are unprofessional...but **regressing to using ONLY CHALK is a problem of THE PRESENTER**
Chalk-only is much more simplistic. Science types are typically horrible public speakers. Using something as *visually complex* as PPT effectively in a speech or presentation requires mid-level presentation skills.
The first lesson I used to teach for PPT is "less is more" You can have 'slides' you hand out but don't present, also, your handout doesn't *just* have to have your PPT slides
Also, the "PPT" has become a way for people to procrastinate & do half-ass work. Especially in business sectors that are very perception-based, the presentation is what gets you the contract, not the RFP....not saying it's right or good, just describing how things often work.
Powerpoint is a computer program....**its just another communication channel** the fact that some people can't use it effectively means they need to *learn better communication and speaking skills*
how much would you say you actually watch, averaged out?
for me it depends on which shows are in new episodes. i'm mostly 'caught up' to where all i am interested these days is new stuff
right now, we have daily show, colbert, workaholics, girls, broad city, new girl, parks & recreation, AND community all in new episodes so...that's 7 hours for me
plus i watch rachel maddow usually every weeknight so that's 8 total
8 plus random stuff i might watch...
so right now I'm probably in the 10-15 hr per week if i'm figuring conservatively
you can have "no suspicion of foul play" AND "completely inconclusive" exist simultaneously....they are not mutually exclusive at all
ok listen guy, you're not the only one who understands this...in fact I assumed this level of knowledge:
To make a convincing conspiracy play, you need to know:
Who would benefit from a coverup
How hard would a coverup be
Who has the resources to perform a coverup
1. rich criminals
2. not too hard for rich criminals
3. rich criminals
the details & context of the ***unexplained death*** are PRIMA FACIA meet your conspiracy possibility criteria
WaPo stops short of outright *saying* she committed suicide, but that's certainly the conclusion they're leading their readers to.
There's a reason the press shies away from it. Mental health organizations have guidelines and recommendations on how to report responsibly on suicides.
wrong...this is probably a cover-up....**technically** you're right, in the sense that yes...indeed...details of a suicide or abuse situation that are irrelevant are often left out voluntarily by the reporter. Yes that happens...
the police report was **completely inconclusive** and give the context of the killing, namely the BTC armageddon, along with other factors leads to a rational suspicion of foul play
your point is not a counterpoint to GP...its obliquely related, and serves to inject uncertainty into the debate, but it is not a counter...
the WaPo article saying it was "suicide" is not trustworthy and neither is your line of thinking