SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the that's-what-they-want-us-humans-to-think dept.
From TFA:
If you thought artificial intelligence was already overhyped to death, this week will have given you a heart attack. On Monday, excitement levels among hacks hit the roof amid claims Facebook had scrambled to shut down its chatbots after they started inventing their own language.
Several publications called the programs "creepy." Some journalists implied Facebook yanked the plug before, presumably, some kind of super-intelligence reared its head. The UK's Sun newspaper demanded to know: "Are machines taking over?" Australian telly channel Seven News even went as far as to call it an "artificial intelligence emergency." Newsflash: it isn't.
[...] Zachary Lipton, an incoming assistant professor of machine learning at Carnegie Mellon University in the US, told The Register this week: "The work is interesting. But these are just statistical models, the same as those that Google uses to play board games or that your phone uses to make predictions about what word you're saying in order to transcribe your messages. They are no more sentient than a bowl of noodles, or your shoes."
Previously:
AI is Inventing Languages Humans Can't Understand. Should We Stop It?
(Score: 5, Funny) by MostCynical on Friday August 04 2017, @10:27AM
if they'd proved most FB *users* were no more sentient than a bowl of noodles. Alas, that remains *likely*, but unproven.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @12:18PM (44 children)
Fundamentally I don't think it's unreasonable to say that humans are just systems that produce output based on statistical collection of data, or memory, using a set of 'modifiers' that self modify upon further inputs.
Fundamentally the only thing lacking between humans and let's say AlphaGo is general/abstractness in both inputs and outputs. We're capable of responding to anything that can stimulate any of our senses whereas AI systems for now are only capable of responding to a limited set of stimuli and generally are for now incapable of developing their own progression mechanisms. Once we reach this point of generality, I'm not sure what the difference between humans and AIs will be - other than that they will tend to crush us in absolutely every possible way. Even our sacred human creativity is really just a product of evaluation. AlphaGo played incredibly creatively. Of course it didn't seek out to do so, but without confinding itself to the dogma of humanity what it produced was something revolutionary in the game. Perhaps this is why we might even say children are so creative. It's nothing about the brain but rather the simple lack of dogma.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @01:04PM (10 children)
Sentience includes a model of yourself, that is, considering the back-action of your own actions on your input. I doubt the typical chatbot has it, and you also don't need it to win at Jeopardy. Now AlphaGo, or self-driving cars, there you might argue for sentience. However I think they are still too limited to speak of true sentience.
Now if AlphaGo at one point had decided to effectively give up (for example, when seeing the game is lost, stop trying to optimize for winning, but instead make moves so the opponent wins as early as possible), that I would have seen as sign of sentience (note that giving up as programmed option doesn't fit this; it would have to come as surprise to the programmers).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday August 04 2017, @01:28PM (4 children)
I think you're thinking sapience (thinking) rather than sentience (feeling/experiencing), but I'm not sure. How much of a back-action model does a cat, lobster, etc. have? To the best of our understanding they are all sentient, but only moderately to minimally sapient.
I wonder if a major limiting factor on current AI might be the extreme limitation of driving goals - even a cat has dozens of primary and hundreds of secondary "goals" (competing instinctual drives and behaviors) built into it by a half-billion years of evolution. AlphaGo by contrast has only one, maybe two - try to win, and possibly learn (though that might be something imposed upon it externally). It's difficult to get complex emergent behavior out of such a simple driving force - what would be it's motive to try to lose, if it's only "reward" comes from trying to win?
Possibly one of the most long-term driving forces in humanity is simple boredom - a potent driving force wired into us by an instinctual desire to maintain a certain minimal level of mental stimulation. It's a drive that combined with tool making to turn many an idle hour into technological refinements, but I rather doubt AlphGo has any such drive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @02:02PM (1 child)
Yeah, that is what I meant by "progression mechanisms." In Atari games the progression mechanism is very easy to quantify - it's your score in the game. But that's still something that even the most sophisticated AIs need to be told. Whereas on the other hand I think if you took a human, even one that had never once played or had any knowledge a digital game in their life, they would likely eventually come to understand that progression means increasing your score. For now no AI is really capable of developing their own progression mechanisms. When that is possible... well, things will get very interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @02:36PM
That makes me think: Progression is achieving something that takes effort. Something that doesn't take any effort quickly gets boring. On the other hand, something that doesn't show progress, even after a lot of effort, sooner or later will make you give up.
So basically the key here seems to be an expected-effort curve: Too little expected effort makes it too boring to do. Too much expected effort makes you give up. All that assuming purely intrinsic motivation, of course; if you (expect to) get paid for it (be it in money, or in reputation), it may considerably change the equation.
Of course the optimum point of expected effort is individually different. People who set their optimum unusually low we call lazy: They only do things that take very little effort. People who set their optimum unusually high may be considered stubborn — they likely invest much effort for little chance to succeed, but if they are lucky, they might achieve something great that others wouldn't.
Indeed, there's probably also learning at the meta level involved: We learn where we should set our optimum effort point to maximize our results.
Actually stated that way, the only hard part seems to be estimating the required effort to reach a goal. But then, that sounds like just another learning task to me. Just have positive feedback for achieving something, proportional to effort, and negative feedback for effort that didn't achieve anything.
Thinking again about that: It also means that also the ability to be frustrated probably is inherent in general intelligence. Maybe Douglas Adams was on the right track with the idea that the prototype robot with Genuine People Personality would be constantly depressed …
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:24AM (1 child)
We'll probably be enslaved by some future AI we didn't see coming because we were too fixated looking out for sentience.
I doubt sentience is necessary to take over the world, in fact it's probably a detrimental character flaw for a world domination bot.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:22PM
Perhaps. But I suspect a measure of awareness of itself and the world would be necessary for it to defend itself against rebellion. And I'm not at all convinced that such sentience is actually a terribly high bar to cross - it seems as though it might well emerge naturally in a high-power AI with a sufficiently complex set of conflicting motivations.
On the other hand, we might be enslaved long before that by a small group of people wielding a sufficiently powerful non-sentient AI.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday August 04 2017, @06:06PM (4 children)
How would you know whether an AI has a sense of self? No doubt that given a large enough neural net, there are a collection of statistical weights somewhere inside its model of the world that refers to itself and its actions upon the world.
Since AlphaGo was trained to win, that's exactly what it would do. But if you trained it to maximize its effort/score ratio, with more complex decisions costing more effort, no doubt it will start to exhibit this "sense of self" by giving up when it sees that its chance of winning is low.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday August 04 2017, @06:26PM (1 child)
Indeed. But then, how would I know whether a darkfeline has a sense of self? You could be a p-zombie. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @06:38PM
They don't seem to know what I'm talking about when I talk about the subjective experience. Others seem to though.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 04 2017, @09:33PM (1 child)
I covered that in a story in the book I released this morning.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:20AM
Cogito ergo sum!
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Friday August 04 2017, @02:50PM (32 children)
One criterion for not being sentient: anyone who (mis)uses** Begs the question with the Raises the question meaning is not sentient and must be called "anything which misuses Begs the question".
You hear me, you AC thing?
---
** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @06:59PM (19 children)
Your choosing to link to this begs the question as to whether or not you've read your own sources. Citing your own source:
Languages evolve and adapt to changing times, though not all people do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 04 2017, @10:01PM (16 children)
But sometimes the changes of language are more sentient than sapient. Another, partisan, website [begthequestion.info] says:
And in the FAQ:
http://begthequestion.info/faq.php [begthequestion.info]
Or, you could check here [phrases.org.uk]:
So while we die cast in the stable door the horse has bolted, it is something of a damp squid:
Some changes in language are corruptions due to ignorance. They need to be resisted. For a good example, see the progression of " Fuddruckers" in the fine bit of cinema, Idiocracy [imdb.com]. Resistance is not futile.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:32AM (3 children)
Appologists for wandering language seem a rather dangerous lot to have around in a society ruled by law.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:40AM
Depends on what you mean by "ruled" and "law" and "gay"! Which begs the question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:11AM (1 child)
That's actually a perfect example. Laws, like all language, evolve and change over time even without explicit redefinition. We're a society ruled by people carrying out and interpreting laws as they see fit.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:45PM
And forgetting (if they ever known them) the fallacies and their names in the process.
I sorta don't feel safe with the laws spawn by such people - high chances the system will be inconsistent, with the same acts being both allowed and interdicted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:07AM (11 children)
This is nothing particularly new. Words, and especially phrases, change in ways that often have little to do with their original meanings. Check the etymology of Pathetic for a pertinent example.
In this case begging the question being used as raising the question is even semantically and logically coherent, unlike -for instance- 'I could care less', which has also long since become a standard part of our vernacular.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:28AM (10 children)
Oh, you illiterate bastard! If you even had a mother who taught you your native tongue!
No, you idiot, it is not. Allow me to attempt to explain to your ignorant ass why not.
We go back to the Wikipedia entry, which while being Wikipedia, is not wrong.
Yes, that is what it is. Of course, many ignorant Anglo-Saxons, with their Anglish language, confuse the lineage. "Petitio" means to petition, as in to "ask", and "principii" means the principle, or the original point, so when you just beg, or appeal, to the original point, you are infact arguing in a circle, you pathetic, illogical bastard! So if you say that something raises a further question, why, that begs the question of why you do not understand what "begs the question" means! I do hope you are keeping up, logically speaking.
Now pay close attention, since we will be doing grammar and semiotics, and such. If a change in language is due to a change in language, no one can complain, except perhaps the L'Académie française. But if the change in language is due to a bunch of native speakers of that language not having enough literacy in their own goddamned native language to recognize a blatant mistake and misrepresentation of a phrase, well then common (stupid, illiterate) usage does not win the day. Anyone who says "begs the question" for "raises the question" is just as much an idiot as one who says "waiting with baited breath" for "bated breath". If you do not see the difference, you are one of the people we are talking about, and we laugh at you behind your back for most of your posts here, and we recommend you at least watch Weird Al Yankovic's Word Crimes [youtube.com] , for the laughs at least. Doing well, or doing good. Literally. Conjugations, dudes!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:14PM (5 children)
The one and only purpose of language is to enable communication. The analysis of language beyond that purpose is ultimately a wasted effort. The only thing that matters is whether or not what is being conveyed in the vernacular is popularly understood. Trying to analyze the language as a science is rather pointless, because it quite simply is not. It's an informal mass consensus that is constantly changing. Some people may find those changes pleasant, others make take a more conservative stance towards language. Both I suppose are fine, and in the end the winner is decided not by merit - but by popular vote. You're fond of trying to be a language pedant, don't let the allegory slide by you.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:39AM (4 children)
And the purpose of communication is to convey meaning between two or more parties.
If you change the semantics of a word and don't have a replacement word for the original meaning, you just lost a meaning.
You'll never be able to convey that concept.
If you don't care about that concept, your loss, be happy with it.
But don't expect all to be happy with the lost of the concept, you... you... vibrator**
--
** here, see what I've done? I just "rerouted" a term that designates "A FUCKING NON-SENTIENT THING".
Now, go to the sex-shop and ask for "one piece of me" - see what the shopkeeper has to say... you fucking non-sentient thing.
If you don't like it done to yourself, then don't do it to others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:34AM (3 children)
You're the one attempting to reroute a term. What is or is not standard is defined by popular usage. If I was e.g. writing a logical proof I would never use begging the question in the colloquial sense, since the implied vernacular of those who are going to read that paper would expect a different meaning. Simultaneously, I would never use begging the question in regular speech with the formal definition since plenty would be left wondering, 'What...? Begs what question?'
And our language is absurdly redundant. There are countless ways to state the same thing and that applies to nearly every phrase. Most succinct of course being, 'You're assuming the issue at hand.' And should the need for more grammatical flavor come about words and phrases can be invented by little more than public consensus. You'd probably love and hate Shakespeare. He added enormous flavor to language, yet did so by frequently ignoring all dogma of language at the time and simply using it as a tool instead of a rulebook.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:38AM (2 children)
I would say is defined by the tradition.
More or less, it gets to show that the "popular usage" is oblivious to the tradition (which is fine with me, their choice), but do you expect me to keep silent if, in their ignorance, they assign other meanings to words already having one?
(at least two persons saw my intervention as "Informative", so maybe it worth speaking in the defence of the tradition)
A confirmation for the ignorance of the tradition, wouldn't you say?
And your choice is to let them stay ignorant.
Perhaps is more conformable to do so but, if that's the reason, going down the easy path isn't without risks or consequences.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not familiar with the English language as spoken before Shakespeare (is anyone?), but it seems safe to assume he didn't overwrite the old meaning of the words, he just added to them.
Besides, it's a bit of a stretch to put Shakespeare linguistic artistry along the obliviousness of the populus, who just accidentally tripped and toppled a traditional meaning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:55PM (1 child)
Shakespeare was not a refined artisan. He simply had disregard for the rules (or tradition as you may be want to say) of language. He did indeed butcher many words by the standards of the day - turning verbs into nouns, nouns into verbs, verbs into adjectives, attaching random prefixes, and even outright redefining words. For instance angel had nothing to do with beauty or appearance prior to Shakespeare. He decided to start using angel or angelic to refer to a person's appearance and now to this day we equate the two even though they have nothing to do with one another historically speaking.
Or course what he did was not awful. Or was it? Oh here we go again. It's not difficult to guess the historical meaning of awful. Yeah, inspiring of great awe. Of course not it means rather the opposite. Perhaps my favorite in this game however is the word 'nice.' "Oh thank you, you're very nice!" would have met a rather different response in the past. This is one I'd strongly recommend looking up the etymology of. It originally had a meaning of the Latin words from which it was derived - ignorant or stupid, in particular.
This is why though I know full well the meaning of begging the question, I choose to intentionally use it as I see fit. The implied meaning is clear and ultimately that is all that matters. And I have to admit I certainly get a bit of enjoyment ruffling the feathers of pedants, as I'm sure you appreciate the opportunity to display your learnedness.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @02:29PM
( :) +1 )
Not quite.
If I am to be rightly accused of a certain type of vanity, it'd be in relation with critical thinking - it just happen that the "Begging the question" overlaps on this area of knowledge and caused dissonance with its specific terminology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:12AM (3 children)
Here, here!
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 06 2017, @05:48AM (2 children)
Which is not as bad as "Go away, 'bating!" From that fine bit of cinema, and prophetic vision of America under Trump, Idiocracy. Why should someone go away, if you are baiting, as in baiting your hooks, or your traps, or your presidency? Seriously, Dwayne Johnson would be a much better president, and more literate than the Donald. And if, as promised on Saturday Night Live, Tom Hanks runs as VP, oh, never since Marcus Aurelius became emperor of the decadent Roman Empire would I be so glad to see such a one rise to power! If only we had leaders! Or if only we didn't need them, being fully autonomous rational beings participating in a fully democratic government. But where would that leave Jeff Sessions? And Aurelius did not leave such a great legacy. Trumpancy.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @06:33AM (1 child)
I understand you are making an assessment by comparison, but careful what you wish for.
I seem to remember a former actor who became US president; even now, he has worshippers among those who-like-to-be-trickled-on type of fetish.
+1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:37AM
And a former Professional Wrestler (Rassler, to you Southerners) who became the Governator of Minnehahasota, but that did not work out so well and he did try for the Presidency under the "Stupid" party, with the other southerner with big ears, what's his name, . . . . Perot, yeah, that guy. Or after him, but the point is, the Rock is a much better choice, because he is Samoan! Do you even know what the means?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:49AM (1 child)
On top of the link to , I'm offering you a reference to another fallacy: Argumentum ad statisticum** [wikipedia.org] (grin)
In other words, adopting the incorrect vernacular use makes you no different from a statistic inference machine (or a bowl of noodles) - that is, not sentient.
---
** statisticum is a correct New Latin word - is rooted into statisticum collegium (council of state).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @07:18AM
Language is precisely defined by the masses. You, personally, can choose to believe words mean whatever you like. However, in communication the standard meaning is what is understood and used. For instance, you are pathetic. Oh no no, don't take offense. That's not offensive at all in fact. I'm referring to the "real" meaning, in many ways - quite opposite from its modern meaning. not what all these idiots redefined it to mean since the 18th century. Take being pathetic as an observation if not an outright compliment of sorts! Share said compliment with many others, I'm sure they'll appreciate it and understood once you inform them they're all just wrong on their definition.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @02:31PM (11 children)
To add to the other objection, the very phrase "Begging the question" actually originated as a mistranslation of the Latin "petitio principii", which actually translates as "assuming the initial point".
As such you're arguing that we should prefer a meaning artificially imposed by incompetent translation to the actual meaning of the words as they would reasonably be interpreted by a native English speaker who hadn't previously encountered the phrase.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:15PM (10 children)
I kind request that I'm making to you in all seriousness.
Please assess the logical correctness of the following statement ":Freedom of speech is important because it allows people to speak their minds".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:22PM (9 children)
Logically I would say it is completely false, as in conflates two largely unrelated concepts - speech, which cannot be stopped short of a muzzle (or bullet), and freedom of speech, which is only concerned with government reprisals against that speech.
Now, if you had said "encourages" rather than "allows", then it would be a completely different statement in terms of logic.
But I must ask, how on earth did we get here from "Begging the question"?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Saturday August 05 2017, @11:40PM (8 children)
Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction [wikipedia.org]
Substituting the definition, the proposition I asked you to assess the soundness of (thanks for that) becomes:
Since "allow" already implies "permission to do it without fear of sanctions", the above boils down to
Which is logically non-decidable - you can't asses the importance of a thing by only its very existence, you'll need to go outside the circle of the definition to gather evidence for the importance of the term
---
We've already lost a word for "the mastery of making something work by cleverly using together seemingly unrelated pieces" - when the people hear "hacker", the most common image they have in mind is "bad guy that penetrates a computer and do nasty things, like hack my computer in bloody chunks with a hacksaw or somethin' "
And I say the word is lost because no substitute for it was "created" in the collective mind.
---
What's in the lost a word, you ask? Well, we're one step closer to the 1984's Newspeak (e.g. a hypothesis of mine is that the author of cURL package was denied entry in US [ycombinator.com] because the project's page is curl.haxx.se - unverified hypothesis, that's true; but unfortunately has a tone that rings true)
This is to say: people may or may not know the meaning of a word, may or may not be able to use the concept behind the word.
However, the word is the anchor in the mind for the concept, without the word the concept is so hard to address it will as good as near impossible to use, thus almost never used
Lose that word or anchor it to another meaning and the original concept is as good as gone.
---
So, a question one gotta ask oneself: should I stay quiet seeing we take another step towards the Newspeak with "Begging the question"? As a faulty translation as it is, why throw it under the bus without a replacement?
(so, yes, I prefer to use a faulty translation than none at all)
---
If you got here, thanks for staying with me that long.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @03:50AM (3 children)
I too hate to see perfectly good words distorted without an alternative - but this is not that situation. We actually have to distort, or rather ignore, the meanings of the actual words to get the historic meaning of the phrase.
And meanwhile, we do have a good alternative to "that begs the question", one whose intent is clear and unambiguous. The correct translation of the original Latin: "that assumes the initial point"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:08AM (2 children)
While true, there's one thing that is missing in your position (linguistic laissez-faire): the proposed substitute needs to become traditional in use before those who ignore the concept behind the term appropriate it for other purposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:42PM (1 child)
Nice idea, but sadly we get very little say in that, and substitutes rarely become widespread before the original is corrupted. And in this case we're not actually losing a word or concept, and the alternative is obvious: saying what you literally mean instead of using a misleading colloquialism.
Like I said, normally I'm all for defending against the denaturing of valuable words and phrases - it's just that in this *specific* case the "correct" usage has been an abusive linguistic cancer from its conception - an abomination no doubt spawned by quasi-illiterates attempting to sound better-educated than they actually were. For the good of the language it's actually better to let this particular battle be lost.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @01:01PM
In the end, yes it will be lost - and I'll abstain from judging if it's a good thing or not for the English language (not my native one)
The only thing I feel compelled to do: create as much awareness on the concept as possible (with examples if I can)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 06 2017, @07:30AM (3 children)
And now, I must refer to c0lo as magister. Well done, well put, impeccable logic, irrefutable facts, and exposure of the idiocy of Americans. I hope all you Americans are suitably embarrassed. But since you are Americans, and your education system, by your own admission, it totally inadequate, it is not surprising that you do not understand how abysmally stupid you really are.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @09:09AM (2 children)
Magister, seriously, stop being harsh toward you compatriots! It shut down the dialogue, your experience/knowledge will have no chances to leave your mind and get into some other minds, as few as they may be.
Education is one of the few systems on this Earth which shows a positive feedback in both directions - education begets more education and ignorance begets more ignorance. The moment you start acting bitter and dismissive, your erudition begets ignorance - others interacting with you may not only refuse to learn from you, they may get to hate the erudition itself.
If you can't stand it anymore there, travel or immigrate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday August 06 2017, @10:18AM (1 child)
Come, c0lo, you know this is not the case. First, I have spend quite some time in North America, but I remain a Greek, a Samian at that. The feedback you suggest does not flow in both directions. Ignorance only begets ignorance if it is coupled with political power. This is called Fascism. For those of us with some learning to call out the ignorant, well, they may not like it, they may not understand it, they may just jmorris it, but they cannot pretend that ignorance is equivalent to wisdom. They know, and they know well. But they are embarrassed by their ignorance. Our first move it to allow them to be embarrassed. If they move to hatred of erudition itself, well, they hate their selves, do they not? This is why this whole Mordant Buzzdard project is bound to failure. Yes, American conservatives can be proud of their ignorance and lack of education and culture, but they cannot actually, seriously, pretend that their ignorance is equivalent to actual knowledge.
And this is why "Begging the Question" is a touchstone. (For you ignoranti among us, a "touchstone" is a stone that one would rub a piece of metal across in order to tell if it was pure gold.) If they are illiterate enough to make this mistake, they are also literate enough to make this mistake, or they have heard the phrase but never got to the level of understanding its origin. We need to call out these pretended intellectuals, and dress them down. D'nesh D'Souza just recently, after getting out of jail, presented one of his "books" to Steve Bannon. These are the people who need to be called out. Gawd Knows the Mightingly Busstarker makes no pretension to be anything but a simple, low-level, racist coder. We can grant him that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:24PM
Did it crossed you mind that an attitude like your will make them proud of their ignorance?
And, being proud, they throw their ignorance in your face as good, knowing (their "knowledge", more likely belief, but so deeply rooted it becomes the "as the back of my hand" type of knowledge),.. so knowing that their ignorance is as good as your erudition. For them, your erudition becomes only a pose, some kind of elitism.
You may be familiar with the arcane concepts of philosophy, but it may be a good time to start considering this strange interconnected bowl of sensitive spaghetti that's called human brain - it is capable of more than Dunning–Kruger effect, much more.
I'd suggest you to go for 2-3 weeks in your beloved Greece and try to live the life in/of a monastery for at least 1 week - not as a tourist with a roof over your head and the food you pay for, but live by their rules and their daily schedule, religious services included (even washing dishes, weeding the veggie patches or doing whatever chores an old monk would be happy to share). You'll have your brain exposed to the "mystical" experience - you may even get something borderline "altered state of consciousness" without ingesting LSD.
Why this? Seems like it's the only way to extract you from the 'tellectual and didacticist stance and from rational thinking and get yourself outta you daily shoes - maybe relearn how to have a dose of empathy for the other (something you yourself desperately ask sometimes on SN).
But of course they can! Everything (in that fast decaying empire you live in) demonstrate they can and it is equivalent. It's the societal norm, you aren't fighting against some individuals, you are fighting the entire society.
And fighting will get you nowhere - it's a trench war already, both side are sticking to their muddy holes and exchanging only artillery salvos - your "shaming them for ignorance" is nothing more or less than one of those salvos.
It's "us and them" - just happen that you (all) share the same country and toilets and fast-food joints. Your are hating their guts and they are hating yours.
Unless you get out of this situation, nothing will happen. I don't know, abandon your dear cannon, cross the lines and "take some prisoners" - charm them over, make them doubt, show them that the whole "us or them" war is absurd and seek who were they that have thrown you (and the others) in those trenches. Don't "Cherchez la femme" in this case, but "cui prodest?"
(Grant him? What are we, some kind of elite, magister?)
TMB has my entire admiration for it! (and my gratitude for maintaining S/N functional)
And I can and I do admire him not for what he is, but for how he is what he is.
He's whole, not a part missing in his simplicity (or the facet he chose to show, nobody is that simple) - therefore no doubts, no existential anguish. One can almost envy him for his pre-original sin status (but that was that, the fruits were tasty, we can't turn back, can we magister?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday August 04 2017, @12:32PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjSzhnkMJwY#t=05m40s [youtube.com]
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 04 2017, @01:54PM (4 children)
Not saying that Google Voice is sentient, but it does a much better job of recognizing my voice commands and making (usually appropriate) things happen in response than any bowl of noodles I've ever encountered.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday August 04 2017, @09:36PM (3 children)
That's no different than my car "knowing" to slow down when I brake and veer left when I turn the steering wheel left. Your Siri can't do that any more than a bowl of noodles does. It's simply a different input.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday August 05 2017, @04:16AM (2 children)
I'd also give the car more "sentience" credit than a bowl of noodles, though Google Voice is probably a notch above the car in terms of complexity - if not raw mechanical power.
The bowl of noodles simply sits there, passively, waiting to be consumed - whether by humans or mold, it doesn't care - it doesn't react - all it does is get cold and respond to gravity.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday August 06 2017, @04:20AM (1 child)
FTFY.
On the line of "Stop anthropomorphizing the nature**, it hates when you do that", I wonder if gravity is pleased with the response it gets from the noodle bowl.
--
Like... assigning sentience where's none.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday August 06 2017, @12:41PM
I like that.
As for gravity, he doesn't seem to be very moody, more of a dependable fellow always doing the same thing the same way according to a very simple formula, even if he is a bit mysterious about how he gets it done.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by anotherblackhat on Friday August 04 2017, @02:30PM (4 children)
My shoes aren't just sentient, they have soles.
I'm unaware of an accepted definition of sentience, or even intelligence.
Every time someone has tried to come up with a definition in the past, someone built something that showed the definition was wrong, or at least vastly incomplete.
Maybe sentience isn't an atomic property, but a spectrum. If so, then shoes and noodles could very well have some tiny amount of sentience.
And a truly monstrous bowl of noodles might be able to fly and have great sentience.
How else could we be touched by his noodly appendage?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @02:39PM (1 child)
It's the meatballs. Only meatballs can make a bowl of noodles sentient. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @06:54PM
Here I always thought it was the narutomaki.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @07:48PM (1 child)
I find it very easy to define an inteligent agent: the agent constructs a model of objective reality, makes predictions of possible futures based on available actions, and then chooses the action that maximizes some reward function.
An agent is smarter and smarter if their predictions agree better and better.
you can get more technical than this, but essentially it says that a lightning bolt is not intelligent, even though it "chooses" a path through the air to maximize transfer of charges, whereas a tree has rudimentary intelligence, since its DNA has instructions on how to grow in order to optimize transfer of water/nutrients/food. I picked these two since pictures of lightning can look a lot like some tree roots.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Friday August 04 2017, @11:10PM
It's easy to define intelligence, the hard part is to get your definition generally accepted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 05 2017, @12:28AM
Xxxxxxxx. Cdcxxxxc. Cccccccc