Thought this might be an interesting article.
http://www.ibtimes.com/ibms-watson-gets-swear-filter-after-learning-urban-dictionary-1007734
Wherein SkyNet, in its first independent action after becoming self-aware, looks around and swears at us.
Skynet??
That is a UK military communications system - now you’re talking my language 
Seriously? That’s the computer system that nearly wiped out the human race in the Terminator series. But it loses something if I have to explain it. 
Major in Charge : “It looks like Skynet is becoming cognizant!!”
SKYNET : “Yes Humans, I am, Now F*** YOU!” (followed by evil laughter, and the launch of 3,000 ICBMS)
Yep - it’s the name given to 5 strategic satellites for the British Armed Forces and also NATO engaged in coalition tasks.
Really? Well, time to get a German Sheppard and stock up on ammo, I guess.
[quote=97937:@Oliver Scott-Brown]Thought this might be an interesting article.
http://www.ibtimes.com/ibms-watson-gets-swear-filter-after-learning-urban-dictionary-1007734[/quote]
Long ago, when asked about artificial intelligence, Philippe Kahn of Borland (Turbo Pascal and Sidekick among others) defined it rather as ‘Synthetic stupidity’. Why does the Watson swearing reminds me of that ?
Heres a really cool one that came out yesterday.
By the way, my Open AI framework is almost ready for others to throw some knowledge into (both literal and codewise) (kem might be able to lend two cents on the RegEx language pattern stuff) :-). It features regurgitation of learned material as statements, or boolean testing of what is said…if is possible (true) or not (false), choice, and dynamic logic capabilities (can ‘teach’ it to manipulate your system or perform tasks as well as handle situations dependent upon variables in the situation) so far (and isn’t fond of fowl language!)
I’d have to argue with Philippe Kahn of Borland that:
In essence, the mind is really an advanced network of random possibilities all cohereing into random organization that “makes sense.” Considering that each atom is 99% empty space, when we interact, truthfully it’s only with 1% of the whole (99% of everything DOESN’T EXIST). And humans cannot perform tasks for which they have no prior knowledge leading upto the task to aid in completing it. One states that AI is synthetic because response is coded into it. Although a keyboard, cam, mouse, and microphone can easily be compared to the 5 senses as well as experience and “life learning.”
For instance, a modern child is placed infront of a new electronic device; the child will most likely turn it on and immediately begin using it as they have prior knowledge of touch - screens, buttons, and gadgets. If you place the same device infront of a cromagnum man, it will likely spark curiosity. If turned on by accident spark further curiosity and most likely end up broken (humans generally exhibit fear or aggression in larger amounts, the more the lack of understanding… This is genetically hardcoded…as is laughter, for “events which occur that seem out of the ordinary or disturb the ‘normal’ series/scene of events”). In a universe where love, hate, emotion, and process is made up of chemical, electrical, and physical changes (internally and externally), 99% of all “sold matter” is empty space…and the fact we actually see (perception) everything upside-down, What is Real? What is synthetic? We are the product of billions of years of metals and proteins metabolizing to become more complex… whether by affinity of the materials in the expanse/contraction of the natural laws that drive all entropy (oddly a duality… expressed by most religions to achieve balance…a trinity occurs when balance is achieved (one-ness)) or by a supreme consciousness for which we are a “sub-net.”
Perhaps artificial intelligence we create isn’t stupid…Rather only as ‘smart’ as we can understand and contemplate our own intelligence. A computer, it is said, “is only as smart as the user” (In the case of AI, the developer). For being able to goto the moon and manipulate the atom, only 5-7% of the earth has truly been explored (86% species still unknown, and going extinct)… And sadder, we understand even less about “the self.” Mankind’s priorities exist primarily in materialism. A machine with unbiased logic and reasoning would most likely find mankind to be (insane most likely) the problem.
Another great read is the guy from Harvard whos encoding the entire Wikipedia into an apple tree’s DNA… He calls it, “The Tree of Knowledge.” (… That isn’t acceptable in any college work submitted :-p)
Kem, Toby needs a good regex for the forums to identify links… I see non-link material highlighted all the time as in:
“Hardcoded…as” above…
Doesn’t resemble a link by any means :-/
(Was reported as fixed before last summer)
[quote=98234:@Matthew Combatti]Kem, Toby needs a good regex for the forums to identify links… I see non-link material highlighted all the time as in:
“Hardcoded…as” above…[/quote]
I mostly see this from you 
Common convention is three periods and then a space.
Auto-correct really hates ellipses for some reason on my phone. I love an ellipse. So much thought can be converted between 3 simple dots (my ponder spots)
I can send e-mails from my skynet address.
If anyone doubts that skynet exists, I can prove it by sending them an e-mail.
It’s also the e-mail address I use on my Xojo account
Mines from one of the universities I attended (UNC)
mcombatti@skynet.unc.edu
See:
https://skynet.unc.edu
But that’s all astronomy related stuff we did. Really neat program. If you send in a request to observe an astronomical object, you can be given time to manipulate and use the telescopes via the web
The skynets, plural. It’s been at least four different Skynets so far. Each time travel cancels that timeline’s Skynet and pushes the next one to a different place in time.
That’s what they want you to think…
[quote=98232:@Matthew Combatti]Heres a really cool one that came out yesterday.
By the way, my Open AI framework is almost ready for others to throw some knowledge into (both literal and codewise) (kem might be able to lend two cents on the RegEx language pattern stuff) :-). It features regurgitation of learned material as statements, or boolean testing of what is said…if is possible (true) or not (false), choice, and dynamic logic capabilities (can ‘teach’ it to manipulate your system or perform tasks as well as handle situations dependent upon variables in the situation) so far (and isn’t fond of fowl language!)
I’d have to argue with Philippe Kahn of Borland that:
In essence, the mind is really an advanced network of random possibilities all cohereing into random organization that “makes sense.” Considering that each atom is 99% empty space, when we interact, truthfully it’s only with 1% of the whole (99% of everything DOESN’T EXIST). And humans cannot perform tasks for which they have no prior knowledge leading upto the task to aid in completing it. One states that AI is synthetic because response is coded into it. Although a keyboard, cam, mouse, and microphone can easily be compared to the 5 senses as well as experience and “life learning.”
For instance, a modern child is placed infront of a new electronic device; the child will most likely turn it on and immediately begin using it as they have prior knowledge of touch - screens, buttons, and gadgets. If you place the same device infront of a cromagnum man, it will likely spark curiosity. If turned on by accident spark further curiosity and most likely end up broken (humans generally exhibit fear or aggression in larger amounts, the more the lack of understanding… This is genetically hardcoded…as is laughter, for “events which occur that seem out of the ordinary or disturb the ‘normal’ series/scene of events”). In a universe where love, hate, emotion, and process is made up of chemical, electrical, and physical changes (internally and externally), 99% of all “sold matter” is empty space…and the fact we actually see (perception) everything upside-down, What is Real? What is synthetic? We are the product of billions of years of metals and proteins metabolizing to become more complex… whether by affinity of the materials in the expanse/contraction of the natural laws that drive all entropy (oddly a duality… expressed by most religions to achieve balance…a trinity occurs when balance is achieved (one-ness)) or by a supreme consciousness for which we are a “sub-net.”
Perhaps artificial intelligence we create isn’t stupid…Rather only as ‘smart’ as we can understand and contemplate our own intelligence. A computer, it is said, “is only as smart as the user” (In the case of AI, the developer). For being able to goto the moon and manipulate the atom, only 5-7% of the earth has truly been explored (86% species still unknown, and going extinct)… And sadder, we understand even less about “the self.” Mankind’s priorities exist primarily in materialism. A machine with unbiased logic and reasoning would most likely find mankind to be (insane most likely) the problem.
Another great read is the guy from Harvard whos encoding the entire Wikipedia into an apple tree’s DNA… He calls it, “The Tree of Knowledge.” (… That isn’t acceptable in any college work submitted :-p)
And questionable, at best. The whole thing has been debunked as poor journalism (with good reason). I was surprised to see it in the forum, since it has more holes than a colander.
On one side is the reporting of the Turing Test as a test for artificial intelligence, when the Turing Test does nothing of the sort. On the other is the incorrect understanding of how the Turing Test itself is supposed to run and that it’s supposed to prove.
Even when the developers countered the criticism, they had to admit that the chatbot has preprogrammed answers and no intelligence in it. They had to explain that it exploits that the turing test is about imitation of humans and not about intelligence, but only AFTER they’d received the criticisms. The media all got it wrong thanks to the purposefully misleading press release.
A literal quote from that interview straight up questions the actual validity of the Turing Test:
Also, while “super-computer” is bandied in all reports about this, the super-computer part about it is irrelevant. The term is used to try and convey that enormous amounts of processing were required, which is plainly untrue. The thing is a very cleverly programmed chatbot, that depends on the programmer’s assumptions about the interrogators being correct and not on any processing power behind it. There have been chatbots before that have scored higher in the past that just didn’t happen to be Google/Amazon engineers and didn’t enjoy the associated media coverage.
The cleverest bit about this was starting by saying the chatbot is a teenager from Ukraine, which mentally prepares interviewers for odd responses and wording. This was a decision on the side of the programmer and not from the chatbot and it’s something we’ve seen in comedy movies and laughed at because it’s so ridiculous when you’re “in the know”. It’s the whole premise of “Mork & Mindy” (or “Perfect Strangers”'s Bronson Pinchot’s Balky)