Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Prof Stephen Hawking: thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence

But who's to say there won't be problems/theories that come out of artificial intelligence that are not provable yet beyond our understanding? Might be piece of piss for the machines, but not for us.
We can't say, clearly.

There are physicists who think that there is understanding that will always be beyond our cognitive abilities. Personally, I don't see quite what grounds there are to believe that, although there are certainly things we find it impossible to fully visualise, such as higher-dimensional space.
 
We had a chatbot on here recently - among other places, on the Syria thread. It was fairly easy to spot because it uttered nothing but platitudes. Yeah yeah I know. Seriously, though, it was just picking up on vocab and general attitudes and saying things like (I paraphrase) 'All interested parties need to come together to solve the problem.' Was it anthony243? (Hard to search for posts by banned users.) Anyway, it was an old gen chatbot. Not remotely interesting though some people were polite to it.

Then came Tay. Microsoft’s racist chatbot returns with drug-smoking Twitter meltdown
Not here, not yet.

And then along came yooper. I confess for a while I was convinced he was a new gen chatbot and fascinated by the idea. If I were designing a chatbot I'd factor in crap like bad punctuation and occasional misspelling to lend an air of verisimilitude. I'd also give him a bit of back story. Yooper's bloody-mindedness, including repeatedly posting something critical of the Trump Wall as if it were an endorsement, liking posts that insulted him, and picking up on odd words to post something irrelevant, all seemed to point to a heuristic bot. It wasn't until krtek a houby identified him as a long time serial offender on other forums that I was convinced he wasn't a bot, though by then he'd started to write some mildly creative posts for a change.

So it occurs to me: how can you tell if you're dealing with a bot?
 
Last edited:
We had a chatbot on here recently - among other places, on the Syria thread. It was fairly easy to spot because it uttered nothing but platitudes. Yeah yeah I know. Seriously, though, it was just picking up on vocab and general attitudes and saying things like (I paraphrase) 'All interested parties need to come together to solve the problem.' Was it anthony243? (Hard to search for posts by banned users.) Anyway, it was an old gen chatbot. Not remotely interesting though some people were polite to it.

Then came Tay. Microsoft’s racist chatbot returns with drug-smoking Twitter meltdown
Not here, not yet.

And then along came yooper. I confess for a while I was convinced he was a new gen chatbot and fascinated by the idea. If I were designing a chatbot I'd factor in crap like bad punctuation and occasional misspelling to lend an air of verisimilitude. I'd also give him a bit of back story. Yooper's bloody-mindedness, including repeatedly posting something critical of the Trump Wall as if it were an endorsement, liking posts that insulted him, and picking up on odd words to post something irrelevant, all seemed to point to a heuristic bot. It wasn't until krtek a houby identified him as a long time serial offender on other forums that I was convinced he wasn't a bot, though by then he'd started to write some mildly creative posts for a change.

So it occurs to me: how can you tell if you're dealing with a bot?

I've said it before on here, but when it comes to the Turing test of whether or not you can tell if someone you are conversing with is real, humans are more likely to fail it than robots are to pass it. It seems we are rather shitter as a species than we realise. :(
 
I've said it before on here, but when it comes to the Turing test of whether or not you can tell if someone you are conversing with is real, humans are more likely to fail it than robots are to pass it. It seems we are rather shitter as a species than we realise. :(
Yup, guilty of shit recognition ability, albeit unwarranted scepticism.
It would be interesting to test a bot on here, though. If it hasn't already been done.*

*ETA. I don't know what the purpose of anthony243 was. Any idea?
 
The Turing test is overrated. The number of silly bun fights on here between people talking past each other is indicative of the medium's limitations.
 
The Turing test is overrated. The number of silly bun fights on here between people talking past each other is indicative of the medium's limitations.
yeah but even then you can see two people following a line however badly even if they are not understanding the other persons line. Most times I've played with a turing toy there is a lightbulb point in the exchange when the response is so contextually out of whack you can go 'bot'

although I do know I'm talking to a robot to start with so am looking for it, :hmm:
 
yeah but even then you can see two people following a line however badly even if they are not understanding the other persons line. Most times I've played with a turing toy there is a lightbulb point in the exchange when the response is so contextually out of whack you can go 'bot'

although I do know I'm talking to a robot to start with so am looking for it, :hmm:
I dunno tbh. Wouldn't a heuristic bot be able to change its 'mind'? :hmm:
 
Its when the things become fully mobile and fully autominious then start walking around ala T800, ED209 etc then you will have real problems
 
I can't believe people are not getting excited by this?
The pentagon plans automated killer machines and Urban are not excited?

They already basically exist, drones target based on sim cards and algorithims
 
yuk. Obsession with IQ and the measurement therof is a warning sign for this crap isn't it.

You might have seen it already, but Shaun has a very long but worthwhile video about that favoured tome of racists pretending to be scientific, The Bell Curve. There's a bit where he talks about the origins of the IQ test. The guy who first invented them was measuring ability to learn, not necessarily general intelligence, and almost every person after him had some kind of racist agenda in using IQ as they did.

Also, anyone who boasts about their IQ only does so because they have literally no other worthwhile achievements to their name.
 
Also, anyone who boasts about their IQ only does so because they have literally no other worthwhile achievements to their name.

Although a boast-worthy IQ does apparently correlate quite well with being pretty good at Sudoku, I've heard.
 
Back
Top Bottom