Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bitcoin isn't money but it's still a financial (Score 1) 55

<i> I want to be responsible for my money, and I want to be able to use it freely, without government snooping.</i>

Use cash - it's like bitcoin but it can't be tracked across the Internet.

Of course, if you take cash from some people and then give it to other people, well then you must be a criminal.

Comment: Re:Most humans couldn't pass that test (Score 1) 194

by TapeCutter (#47422363) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI
You and I are constantly having original thoughts while walking and chewing gum at the same time, thing is they not impressive enough to be called "original". The test in TFA just extends the psychologically comforting idea that intelligence is something unique to higher life forms, yet when I was at school in the 60's intelligence was generally considered to be unique to humans, animals were generally considered to be instinctual automata, which likely explains why Turing defined AI as the ability to hold a human conversation.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 3, Interesting) 194

by TapeCutter (#47422323) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI
I think Watson would be able to give it's real age by finding the information rather than recalling it, although it might get confused by progressive versions. AI can also produce a picture of a generic rabbit, or cat as the case may be.

The thing that Watson (and AI in general) has difficulty with is imagination, it has no experience of the real world so if you asked it something like what would happen if you ran down the street with a bucket of water, it would be stuck. Humans who have never run with a bucket of water will automatically visualise the situation and give the right answer, just as everyone who read the question have just done so in their mind. OTOH a graphics engine can easily show you what would happen to the bucket of water because it does have a limited knowledge of the physical world.

This is the problem with putting AI in a box labeled "Turing test", it (arrogantly) assumes that human conversation is the only definition of intelligence. I'm pretty sure Turing himself would vigorously dispute that assumption if he were alive today.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 194

by TapeCutter (#47422207) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

explain to my poor retard self how it has not passed

By definition, one in three means it failed to convince the average layman, when it gets better that one in two I will give it a pass.

Personally I think it's achievable today but as much as I admire Turing it's entirely irrelevant to the question of intelligence. It's mostly philosophical masterbation by people who misunderstand the modern definition of intelligent behaviour. For example I can't get a sensible reply when asking an octopus about it's garden but there is no denying it's a remarkably intelligent creature.

Comment: Re:Turing test not passed. (Score 1) 194

by TapeCutter (#47422149) Attached to: The Lovelace Test Is Better Than the Turing Test At Detecting AI

So now anything we understand is not intelligence?

I heard a great anecdote about this from an MIT proffessor on youtube. Back in the 80's the professor developed an AI program that could translate equations into the handful of standard forms required by calculus and solve them. A student heard about this and went calling to see the program in action. The professor spent an hour explaining the algorithm, when the student finally understood he exclaimed, "That's not intelligent, it's doing calculus the same way I do".

It could be argued that neither the student nor the computer were intelligent since they were simply following rules, but if that's the case the only those handful of mathematicians who discovered the standard form are intelligent. It should also be noted that since that time computers routinely discover previously unknown mathematical truths by brute force extrapolation of the basic axioms of mathematics, however none of them have been particularly useful for humans.

When people dispute the existence of AI what they are really disputing is the existence of artificial consciousness, we simply don't know if a computer operating a complex algorithm is conscious and quite frankly it's irrelevant to the question of intelligence. For example most people who have studied ants agree an ants nest displays highly intelligent behaviour, they have evolved a more efficient and generally better optimised solution to the travelling salesman problem than human mathematics (or intuition) can provide, yet few (if any) people would argue that an ant or it's nest is a conscious being.

Comment: Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (Score 1) 318

by TapeCutter (#47421819) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Precisely! The cow fart thing has been deliberately overblown by vested interests (ie: evil environmentalists want to take away your hamburger!!!!). The fact of the matter is that today's cow fart is tomorrow's cow food. Of course if we could stop cows farting and burping we could reduce our overall impact on climate but the real climate related problem not just with with cows but with agriculture in general is land use, ie: flattening forests and scrub land, draining wetlands, etc, to make way for pasture, shrimp farms, etc.

At the end of the day there aren't too many cows or pigs on the planet, there are too many people. However according to said vested interests uttering the simple fact that overpopulation is the root cause of the current environmental collapse somehow means that I want to start exterminating humans en-mass? - Not at all, I just happen to be concerned that collectively we appear to be behaving with all the forethought of a jar of fermenting yeast and as a consequence my three grand kids may suffer the same fate if we fail to reverse that trend.

Comment: Re:Climate Change on Slashdot? Bring on the fun! (Score 4, Informative) 318

by TapeCutter (#47421643) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Jaws was a great movie, however it was just a fucking movie.

Mosquitoes kill around one million people a year worldwide.
Domestic dogs kill over 3000 people a year worldwide (over 50,000 if you count rabies).
A kick to the head by a cow or horse kills about 40 people a year in the US alone.
ALL species of sharks combined have killed an average of 4.2 people a year worldwide over the last decade.

Too bad they didn't feed the sharks consservtionist[sic] brains.

Too bad you feed your brain with fear rather than facts.

Comment: Careful with that axe Eugene (Score 1) 252

by TapeCutter (#47421527) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Sure, Eisenhower warned of the problems but lets try something radical like reading the entire speech. Here's some context to whet your appetite...

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction....[snip]...But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions....[snip]....In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

In other words, Eisenhower saw the overwhelming power of the MIC as essential for peace and at the same time was warning the nation about the potential of a home grown Hitler.

Comment: Re:Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus (Score 1) 337

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies

Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments