Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Okay, seriously Britain (Score 1) 259

It's not a standard pidgin English it's our own English without a workable level of education.

So a dialect can't exist if there are more than one? So Ebonics is different in LA than Chicago. Does that linguistically prove that neither can be a dialect? Your comments about it being hard/impossible for a native speaker of a different dialect to understand it, but the native speakers of that dialect don't have a problem understanding others is more a definition of a dialect than proof it isn't one.

Comment Re:Too much Star Trek on the ol' Netflix I think.. (Score 1) 259

This is about as retarded as calling your toaster a "person" and assigning it "rights".

That's unrelated to the issues mentioned in TFA.

a) define, and
b) prove a computer has consciousness
THEN we'll talk about laws.

We have laws protecting people and squid, and have no definition of consciousness. So why is that a requirement for computers, when it wasn't there for any previous laws? Your non sequitur is non sequitur.

Comment Re:How do you define robot or how many displacemen (Score 1) 259

His test wasn't a test. It was a guess about how one might be able to test. He never wrote up a test plan, or anything like that. It was others around him that ran with the idea, so the Turing Test (as thought of today) was never thought of by Alan Turing.

For what he was guessing about it was more a dismissal of the idea that a calculator that can count faster than a human is "smarter". That's silly, a better test would be to ask it questions, and if you can't tell if it's human or computer, then it's "smart". He knew such a test wouldn't happen in his lifetime, but used the Turing Test to dismiss those asking questions, not as a proposal for a formal test on AI.

You might as well come up with a test to determine whether an alien-human hybrid is more human-like or alien-like. You could make some guesses, but by the time it's an actual concern, someone will have come up with a better test. Turing's test was a dismissal of all the people that thought we were 5 years from AI (and we've been there for 80 or so years).

Comment Re:How do you define robot or how many displacemen (Score 1) 259

There is no reason that even a fully sentient robot will even have to have a body.

Yes, there is. If it's a fully sentient robot, it has to have a body, or it's a fully sentient computer. Or are you getting confused about a central AI controlling a dumb body, vs requiring the AI inhabit the body it controls?

Comment Re:Okay, seriously Britain (Score 1) 259

I disagree of course. For example, those 62 people employ a vast number of people over many decades as well as creating far more wealth than they own.

I disagree of course. The 62 "create" nothing. Those they employ might, but you are confusing those who "own" the work (as defined by the 62) vs those who did the work.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...