Below you can read what Tech Dirt wrote and I’m glad there’s someone else out there that debunks some of nonsense we see today in the news.  I realize things are complex and I keep telling all we get fooled and that’s all of us at times, no exceptions and this was just the perfect proof to go along with what I have been saying for a while in that people can’t tell the difference betweenimage a virtual and a real world value anymore and it can be toxic.  You can read the entire article over at their site…but I did bring his list here of all the media that were kind of fooled here:)

Anyway if you soaked this one in, go spend some time learning up on financial and healthcare algo duping at the Killer Algorithm page and see what smart mathematicians do to pull the wool over your eyes.  I keep saying this is what’s messing folks up as they can’t tell the difference between virtual and real world values.  Link below has video too on how bots write news too. 

Quantitated Justification For Believing Things That Are Not True And Using Mathematical Processes To Fool Ourselves-The Journalistic Bot Functionality Debuts As Media Can’t Resist the Formulas…

Now you might get the idea on why bots are worth $100 and we are worth $0 as 61% of the web is botsSean Gourley does a great job in his video explaining this as he says algorithms are taking over, but who’s algorithms are they and you might ask, will you benefit.  Here’s what I said a few weeks ago about folks suffering from “The Grays” and those in government seem to be afflicted by the same thing called the Sebelius Syndrome.  BD

Virtual Worlds, Real World We Have A Problem And It’s A Big One With A Lot of Gray Areas Finding Where The Defining Lines Exist, Confusing Many With A Lot of Weird Values And Strange Perceptions…

Okay, almost everything about the story is bogus. Let's dig in:
  1. It's not a "supercomputer," it's a chatbot. It's a script made to mimic human conversation. There is no intelligence, artificial or not involved. It's just a chatbot.
  2. Plenty of other chatbots have similarly claimed to have "passed" the Turing test in the past (often with higher ratings). Here's a story from three years ago about another bot, Cleverbot, "passing" the Turing Test by convincing 59% of judges it was human (much higher than the 33% Eugene Goostman) claims.
  3. It "beat" the Turing test here by "gaming" the rules -- by telling people the computer was a 13-year-old boy from Ukraine in order to mentally explain away odd responses.
  4. The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.
  5. As Chris Dixon points out, you don't get to run a single test with judges that you picked and declare you accomplished something. That's just not how it's done. If someone claimed to have created nuclear fusion or cured cancer, you'd wait for some peer review and repeat tests under other circumstances before buying it, right?
  6. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction.

Basically, any reporter should view extraordinary claims associated with Warwick with extreme caution. But that's not what happened at all. Instead, as is all too typical with Warwick claims, the press went nutty over it, including publications that should know better. Here are just a few sample headlines. The absolute worst are the ones who claim this is a "supercomputer."

Anyway, a lot of hubbub over nothing special that everyone seemed to buy into because of the easy headlines (which is exactly what Warwick always counts on). So, since we just spent all this time on a useless nothing.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07284327524/no-computer-did-not-pass-turing-test-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

0 comments :

Post a Comment

 
Top