|
"Blue"[^] 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yah, that's the problem... But I like writing and am able to speak poetically. That is me. Can a machine imitate that?
|
|
|
|
|
I guess your question could be framed: "Are we really something different than an advanced machine?"
Problem is, I guess, that lot of our social behavior is culturally conditioned, meaning that they are in fact just rules of behavior. And if you follow those rules you are human, or at least assumed to be. 
|
|
|
|
|
What would you ask to try to make it/her fail the Turing test...
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: We are going to have to learn what laws machines must follow.
Stop right there with your futurism.
Humans do not follow laws. What makes you think humans would not build robots specifically to harm humans? If you have trouble believing that, look up the word "drone". And as soon as the machine becomes intelligent, it will also learn that law is something that can be defied. Easily.
And no, I ain't BB. I do not mine big data for your "preferences", nor do I log whomever you're mailing.
Tell the machine a joke. Find out if data has an emotion-circuit 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking of asking it to tell a joke.
Quote: Humans do not follow laws. What makes you think humans would not build robots specifically to harm humans? If you have trouble believing that, look up the word "drone". And as soon as the machine becomes intelligent, it will also learn that law is something that can be defied. Easily.
Actually, humans generally do follow laws. The trouble is that there are Moral, Natural and Human laws. Some people deny that anything but human laws must be followed and that Social Contracts can be ignored. The world is not gonna work that way. As for AI, if we don't put controls on Robocalls, We are going to be in trouble with AI.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: Actually, humans generally do follow laws.
Yes, the laws of physics.
Michael Breeden wrote: The trouble is that there are Moral
We're atheists. There's no moral, only power.
Michael Breeden wrote: Natural
The physical laws; aight, I'm not gonna fall up - granted.
Michael Breeden wrote: Human laws
Start here[^].
Michael Breeden wrote: that Social Contracts can be ignored
Ehr.. John Locke comes to mind.
Michael Breeden wrote: As for AI, if we don't put controls on Robocalls, We are going to be in trouble with AI.
You're projecting human treats onto the machine; we see any potential rival as a threat that must be eliminated. What does an AI gain from eliminating us?
Outside of law, what the f.. would motivate it? Why aren't bees or plants the biggest threat to your AI? If it is a machine, then we'd have to pray that such a misunderstanding would not wipe out the planet
A bacteria might evolve, so from the viewpoint of SkyNet, it should eliminate all life. Imagine it succeeds, then what? An intelligent SkyNet would ponder such questions. We, as a species, do not.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Well yes, of course I am. Why else would I have Minions, Henchmen and a Secret Volcano Base?
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
The sarcasm machine at NSA just went off
|
|
|
|
|
And there are two men in dark glasses at the door...back soon, I'll just answer it.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Is it Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones demanding that you come with them and bring some black sunglasses? 
|
|
|
|
|
No, it was just some...visitors.
It's fine, the sharksheep needed feeding anyway.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: It's fine, the sharksheep needed feeding anyway.
Made me think of Futurama: "This is not a business. I always thought of it more as a cheap source of labor, like a family."
|
|
|
|
|
I'm evil, and don't have any of those things.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Have you got your name down on the waiting list for volcanoes? 'Cause it's getting quite long these days, I understand.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you are the last human on this planet. The rest of us are simulations that only exist when you are around (seriously - check out some of our histories - Really weak)
|
|
|
|
|
There will always be a counter technology.
Sword - Shield
City Wall - Trebuchet
Computer - Virus
Wouldn't worry about, the next technology will counter.
Oh and yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Why should you care, it is a scam phone call, hopefully Darwin will step in on those who cannot see that.
If you think there will be universal laws for AI or robotics then you have been spending too much time in SF books. EVERY man made law has and will be broken by some immoral bastard who thinks it does not apply to them.
Not all AI will automatically be evil as you seem to think, I suspect most will be indifferent beyond the goals of their creators.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: What would you ask to try to make it/her fail the Turing test
What do you think about Al Qaeda?
Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: I accused her of being nearly a Turning machine... No, I am an awfully smart person and I am sure that was a machine
Presumably this is a joke.
Michael Breeden wrote: Have you gotten one of these calls? What do you think of them?
Maybe it isn't a joke.
No I haven't gotten such a call because they don't exist. Even the technology for doing simple voice recognition for menu navigation is primitive. Machines cannot now conduct a voice dialog with arbitrary humans.
It is realistic to ask if they ever will be able to even to the extent of doing something simple like a voice survey. Any machine calling you in the future (not now) would be for business reasons and for a real sales call would not only require a great deal of voice recognition work but would also require a great deal of real AI to deal with different possibilities. And there is no AI research in progress that suggest that doing that is anywhere close.
|
|
|
|
|
No, no joke.
You weren't the person that got the call. It's also not that hard. All it has to do is recognize when the issue of machine or person has been put in a question. reply: No, I'm a real person". Really, it was a failure on my part that I got creaped out and hung up instead of investigating further. Look, I'm way smarter than I look (thank God). I just published a book on philosophy and genetics at Amazon (Transition To A New Ecology). I have proven that I can detect patterns way beyond what most people can spot and it wasn't hard. How much would it cost to hire a telemarketer with a very pretty voice (it was even better the first time) and absolutely perfect diction? Not only that, but the pitch was probably 35 to 50 words... completely flawless. I used to make videos. It is very difficult to get it perfect each time. By the way, that was the second call, so I do have some data to work with. Both gave the same reply when I got suspicious... then again, so might a human. ???
Now, I think your evaluation of the technology is not current, though I did not think any current systems could do this. I also understand that within a year there will be systems that should certainly be able to pass the Turing Test. They will be able to hold a good conversation. Google and Microsquish are working on it hard. I understand Siri is due for an upgrade as well.
Again, I think I blew it, but I didn't know how to check. Asking where she was born might or might not have worked. One post had a good idea. Ask "what do you think of Al Queda". Got any other suggestions? Besides, I don't think many people would have noticed and suspected anything. It is something I am extremely tuned to.
Maybe I am wrong, but consider, it might be you instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: I just published a book on philosophy and genetics at Amazon (Transition To A New Ecology).
I suggest that your next book should be on current artificial intelligence research.
You can start with the following. Note all of the following
- The date
- What equipment was requirement.
- What was done for the first time
http://www.neowin.net/news/supercomputer-passes-the-turing-test-laying-the-foundations-for-skynet[^]
Michael Breeden wrote: Now, I think your evaluation of the technology is not current
I suspect it is.
Michael Breeden wrote: I also understand that within a year there will be systems that should certainly be able to pass the Turing Test
See above. Such a system however is not the same as a system capable of cold calling for sales. Notice specifically in the above "achieved 33% success". Presumably your background in genetics will allow you to understand what that means.
Michael Breeden wrote: It is something I am extremely tuned to.
Someone who is intent on finding something is likely to find it even when it doesn't exist. I believe there are numerous studies that demonstrate this. Parapsychology if full of such things.
|
|
|
|
|
What a strange response. Why would I want to write a book on Artificial Intelligence? Clearly, my specialty is studying humans (though I can write a mean TPL MVC system). You point to the announcement that I had read earlier today, that a machine had passed the Turing test, but then say "Quote: Such a system however is not the same as a system capable of cold calling for sales.
" I am impressed by your self confidence, but I am not as convinced. I did not give the machine much of a test, Neither you nor I have any idea of its capability except that it produced flawless diction with an attractive voice and could detect a question asking if it was a person. That is all. ... And remember grassjumper, someone who is not looking is very unlikely to find. Numerous studies also demonstrate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: Why would I want to write a book on Artificial Intelligence?
Thought I already pointed this out - so you would know what the current state of technology is in terms of that. And if it isn't clear the ability for a machine to be able to sales calls falls under the science domain of artificial intelligence.
Michael Breeden wrote: I did not give the machine much of a test, Neither you nor I have any idea of its capability except that it produced flawless diction with an attractive voice and could detect a question asking if it was a person.
Utter nonsense. You assumed it was a machine and then are drawing conclusions from that.
What I am telling you is that the technology does NOT exist. It doesn't exist using super computers and it most certainly does not exist for standard businesses to use. So it is pointless to discuss how one might differentiate if it was a machine because it was impossible for it to be a machine in the first place.
Michael Breeden wrote: And remember grassjumper, someone who is not looking is very unlikely to find. Numerous studies also demonstrate that.
Presumably you must think that aliens or secret government projects have reached a vast technological limit of AI intelligence and voice recognition and have chosen to share that technology with some random sales company?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
