Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Does it trouble you to think of the incredible hardware that computers have these days yet we're still nowhere close to this glorious future of computers replacing the entire workforce? Has it ever occurred to you that these type of machines might be impossible to build because our assumptions about a purely physicalist model of cognition is wrong?

I know people like Ray Kurzweil just say that we need more processing speed, but that's really just yet another moving of the goalpost. There's just been one excuse after another over the years about the hardware needed to make "thinking machines" work, and no one seems to talk about the software side of the technology. Is there actual software out there (or an actual plan or outline of how the software would work) that could actually pass a "Turing Test" if only better hardware were available to run it? The answer is pretty much no.

Also, is there a point when you say that true AI is an impossible engineering feat and that you can't replicate human cognition with a purely physical device? We're already into the trillions of FLOPS, when is it enough?

Just wondering.

It took nature billions of years to develop the level of congnition we have today. Why would you expect humans to replicate it in only a handful of them?

Grizalltheway wrote:It took nature billions of years to develop the level of congnition we have today. Why would you expect humans to replicate it in only a handful of them?

Technology evolves much faster than life.

Gives you a perspective on just how complex the human brain is. I'm not sure how many terraflops of memory or gigahertz of processing speed it takes to make a machine self aware or even if it's possible.

Pwns wrote:Is there actual software out there (or an actual plan or outline of how the software would work) that could actually pass a "Turing Test" if only better hardware were available to run it? The answer is pretty much no.

There's debate about whether this should be considered passing the "Turing Test"... but, just the fact that it is so close and has to be parsed out whether it "passed" or not tells you that it is indeed close and only a matter of time.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... uring-test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:Is there actual software out there (or an actual plan or outline of how the software would work) that could actually pass a "Turing Test" if only better hardware were available to run it? The answer is pretty much no.

There's debate about whether this should be considered passing the "Turing Test"... but, just the fact that it is so close and has to be parsed out whether it "passed" or not tells you that it is indeed close and only a matter of time.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... uring-test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wouldn't hang my hat on convincing 33% of people that a computer is a 13-year-old boy. And they never really mentioned what type of conversations people have with the chat bot. I think I might could right a java program in a few hours that could fool some people into thinking it's a person because they may only make small talk with it.

Well, the "Turing Test" is for 30%. And, yeah, like I said - the fact that you have to parse out why this machine may not have "passed" is well and good. I probably agree with you.

But, the fact that you have to parse it out means that computers are getting very close. And certainly should change (or at least make you reconsider) your answer to this question, imo.:

Pwns wrote:Is there actual software out there (or an actual plan or outline of how the software would work) that could actually pass a "Turing Test" if only better hardware were available to run it? The answer is pretty much no.

I think the answer is: Jesus...


There, are we done here

If it takes something this size to be competitive on Jeopardy then I think we're safe in the short term.

The rub is that Watson is only as good as its human trainers are—and there’s a considerable amount of training involved. There are 220 people involved in the Watson project, a large staff devoted to thinking up ways to stump the machine. They needed more than a week to load in a new database for each Jeopardy software build.

For the medical apps currently under development, it still takes the team several days to retrain Watson. Part of the problem: understanding how to retire old data, or assign lesser confidence intervals as you learn new things about the subjects under consideration. Knowledge is not a static situation, and we tend to take for granted how we learn things. But it also represents a hard problem for the Watson team.

http://news.dice.com/2012/06/08/will-ib ... ur-career/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesus would win Jeopardy (I think we all know that)

Skjellyfetti wrote:Well, the "Turing Test" is for 30%. And, yeah, like I said - the fact that you have to parse out why this machine may not have "passed" is well and good. I probably agree with you.

But, the fact that you have to parse it out means that computers are getting very close. And certainly should change (or at least make you reconsider) your answer to this question, imo.:

Pwns wrote:Is there actual software out there (or an actual plan or outline of how the software would work) that could actually pass a "Turing Test" if only better hardware were available to run it? The answer is pretty much no.

Why does it mean that computers are getting close? This program was actually a chat bot, and not a very sophisticated one at that. It was basically a big hoax. A lot of the tech blogs have basically discredited this particular test...

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140 ... tter.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can you prove that Jesus wasn't GOD's chat bot introduced to man 2,000 years ago...?
I think you cannot

So there you have it

Chizzang wrote:Can you prove that Jesus wasn't GOD's chat bot introduced to man 2,000 years ago...?
I think you cannot

So there you have it

Translation: "Good question. I've got nothing."

Pwns wrote:

Chizzang wrote:Can you prove that Jesus wasn't GOD's chat bot introduced to man 2,000 years ago...?
I think you cannot

So there you have it

Translation: "Good question. I've got nothing."

So you got Jelly to take the bait...
and I didn't bite / have fun with him



(Jesus saves)

Hey Pwns

I have a question for YOU

It hit me while I was in the shower this morning.

If God or some intelligent designer created us as we are today - with no modifications

then why the hell do humans suffer from orthopedic issues (like degenerative disc disease) arising from an anatomy that was originally designed for walking on all fours?

I mean, that's a disorder that is pretty common in humans, and yet for some reason it is exceedingly rare in other vertebrates, even in our closest cousins, the apes.

Could it be that we weren't designed to move the way we do? WTF was our intelligent designer thinking?

I asked Jesus for the answer after I got out of the shower, but he didn't answer so I figured I'd give you a shot at it.

CID1990 wrote:Hey Pwns

I have a question for YOU

It hit me while I was in the shower this morning.

If God or some intelligent designer created us as we are today - with no modifications

then why the hell do humans suffer from orthopedic issues (like degenerative disc disease) arising from an anatomy that was originally designed for walking on all fours?

I mean, that's a disorder that is pretty common in humans, and yet for some reason it is exceedingly rare in other vertebrates, even in our closest cousins, the apes.

Could it be that we weren't designed to move the way we do? WTF was our intelligent designer thinking?

I asked Jesus for the answer after I got out of the shower, but he didn't answer so I figured I'd give you a shot at it.

This ^ is NO WAY for a Conservative to act...
You're starting to reflect that article you copied and that I promptly urinated all over (out of spite)

You're always making me look bad I cannot defeat you

CID1990 wrote:Hey Pwns

I have a question for YOU

It hit me while I was in the shower this morning.

If God or some intelligent designer created us as we are today - with no modifications

then why the hell do humans suffer from orthopedic issues (like degenerative disc disease) arising from an anatomy that was originally designed for walking on all fours?

I mean, that's a disorder that is pretty common in humans, and yet for some reason it is exceedingly rare in other vertebrates, even in our closest cousins, the apes.

Could it be that we weren't designed to move the way we do? WTF was our intelligent designer thinking?

I asked Jesus for the answer after I got out of the shower, but he didn't answer so I figured I'd give you a shot at it.

Punishment for watching Asian bukakke porn. Pervert.

Chizzang wrote:

CID1990 wrote:Hey Pwns

I have a question for YOU

It hit me while I was in the shower this morning.

If God or some intelligent designer created us as we are today - with no modifications

then why the hell do humans suffer from orthopedic issues (like degenerative disc disease) arising from an anatomy that was originally designed for walking on all fours?

I mean, that's a disorder that is pretty common in humans, and yet for some reason it is exceedingly rare in other vertebrates, even in our closest cousins, the apes.

Could it be that we weren't designed to move the way we do? WTF was our intelligent designer thinking?

I asked Jesus for the answer after I got out of the shower, but he didn't answer so I figured I'd give you a shot at it.

This ^ is NO WAY for a Conservative to act...
You're starting to reflect that article you copied and that I promptly urinated all over (out of spite)

You're always making me look bad I cannot defeat you

its simple common sense (accompanied by a degree in biology)

Conservative does not necessarily = religious (in fact there are a lot of conservatives who pay lip service to Jeezus)

and quite frankly I would prefer for the bearded guy in the sky who intentionally made us imperfect to be true- rather than the intelligent designer - because the ID dude needs to have his human engineering degree fvcking revoked

and yes you did urinate all over my article because it tweaked you - maybe you saw something you recognized

CID1990 wrote:Hey Pwns

I have a question for YOU

It hit me while I was in the shower this morning.

If God or some intelligent designer created us as we are today - with no modifications

then why the hell do humans suffer from orthopedic issues (like degenerative disc disease) arising from an anatomy that was originally designed for walking on all fours?

I mean, that's a disorder that is pretty common in humans, and yet for some reason it is exceedingly rare in other vertebrates, even in our closest cousins, the apes.

Could it be that we weren't designed to move the way we do? WTF was our intelligent designer thinking?

I asked Jesus for the answer after I got out of the shower, but he didn't answer so I figured I'd give you a shot at it.

Is anything that is designed designed perfectly? Intelligent design and infallable design can be different, no?

That's not really a lot different than asking why God didn't make the mountains out of chocolate so that children would never go hungry.

Pwns wrote:Is anything that is designed designed perfectly?

Not by humans. But, "intelligent design" should have a slightly higher design standard than humans. No?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:Is anything that is designed designed perfectly?

Not by humans. But, "intelligent design" should have a slightly higher design standard than humans. No?

Now you're arguing: Is God perfect..? and that gets damn interesting

CID1990 wrote: its simple common sense (accompanied by a degree in biology)

Conservative does not necessarily = religious (in fact there are a lot of conservatives who pay lip service to Jeezus)

and quite frankly I would prefer for the bearded guy in the sky who intentionally made us imperfect to be true- rather than the intelligent designer - because the ID dude needs to have his human engineering degree fvcking revoked

and yes you did urinate all over my article because it tweaked you - maybe you saw something you recognized