|
There will always be a counter technology.
Sword - Shield
City Wall - Trebuchet
Computer - Virus
Wouldn't worry about, the next technology will counter.
Oh and yes. 
|
|
|
|
|
Why should you care, it is a scam phone call, hopefully Darwin will step in on those who cannot see that.
If you think there will be universal laws for AI or robotics then you have been spending too much time in SF books. EVERY man made law has and will be broken by some immoral bastard who thinks it does not apply to them.
Not all AI will automatically be evil as you seem to think, I suspect most will be indifferent beyond the goals of their creators.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: What would you ask to try to make it/her fail the Turing test
What do you think about Al Qaeda? 
Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: I accused her of being nearly a Turning machine... No, I am an awfully smart person and I am sure that was a machine
Presumably this is a joke.
Michael Breeden wrote: Have you gotten one of these calls? What do you think of them?
Maybe it isn't a joke.
No I haven't gotten such a call because they don't exist. Even the technology for doing simple voice recognition for menu navigation is primitive. Machines cannot now conduct a voice dialog with arbitrary humans.
It is realistic to ask if they ever will be able to even to the extent of doing something simple like a voice survey. Any machine calling you in the future (not now) would be for business reasons and for a real sales call would not only require a great deal of voice recognition work but would also require a great deal of real AI to deal with different possibilities. And there is no AI research in progress that suggest that doing that is anywhere close.
|
|
|
|
|
No, no joke.
You weren't the person that got the call. It's also not that hard. All it has to do is recognize when the issue of machine or person has been put in a question. reply: No, I'm a real person". Really, it was a failure on my part that I got creaped out and hung up instead of investigating further. Look, I'm way smarter than I look (thank God). I just published a book on philosophy and genetics at Amazon (Transition To A New Ecology). I have proven that I can detect patterns way beyond what most people can spot and it wasn't hard. How much would it cost to hire a telemarketer with a very pretty voice (it was even better the first time) and absolutely perfect diction? Not only that, but the pitch was probably 35 to 50 words... completely flawless. I used to make videos. It is very difficult to get it perfect each time. By the way, that was the second call, so I do have some data to work with. Both gave the same reply when I got suspicious... then again, so might a human. ???
Now, I think your evaluation of the technology is not current, though I did not think any current systems could do this. I also understand that within a year there will be systems that should certainly be able to pass the Turing Test. They will be able to hold a good conversation. Google and Microsquish are working on it hard. I understand Siri is due for an upgrade as well.
Again, I think I blew it, but I didn't know how to check. Asking where she was born might or might not have worked. One post had a good idea. Ask "what do you think of Al Queda". Got any other suggestions? Besides, I don't think many people would have noticed and suspected anything. It is something I am extremely tuned to.
Maybe I am wrong, but consider, it might be you instead.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: I just published a book on philosophy and genetics at Amazon (Transition To A New Ecology).
I suggest that your next book should be on current artificial intelligence research.
You can start with the following. Note all of the following
- The date
- What equipment was requirement.
- What was done for the first time
http://www.neowin.net/news/supercomputer-passes-the-turing-test-laying-the-foundations-for-skynet[^]
Michael Breeden wrote: Now, I think your evaluation of the technology is not current
I suspect it is.
Michael Breeden wrote: I also understand that within a year there will be systems that should certainly be able to pass the Turing Test
See above. Such a system however is not the same as a system capable of cold calling for sales. Notice specifically in the above "achieved 33% success". Presumably your background in genetics will allow you to understand what that means.
Michael Breeden wrote: It is something I am extremely tuned to.
Someone who is intent on finding something is likely to find it even when it doesn't exist. I believe there are numerous studies that demonstrate this. Parapsychology if full of such things.
|
|
|
|
|
What a strange response. Why would I want to write a book on Artificial Intelligence? Clearly, my specialty is studying humans (though I can write a mean TPL MVC system). You point to the announcement that I had read earlier today, that a machine had passed the Turing test, but then say "Quote: Such a system however is not the same as a system capable of cold calling for sales.
" I am impressed by your self confidence, but I am not as convinced. I did not give the machine much of a test, Neither you nor I have any idea of its capability except that it produced flawless diction with an attractive voice and could detect a question asking if it was a person. That is all. ... And remember grassjumper, someone who is not looking is very unlikely to find. Numerous studies also demonstrate that.
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Breeden wrote: Why would I want to write a book on Artificial Intelligence?
Thought I already pointed this out - so you would know what the current state of technology is in terms of that. And if it isn't clear the ability for a machine to be able to sales calls falls under the science domain of artificial intelligence.
Michael Breeden wrote: I did not give the machine much of a test, Neither you nor I have any idea of its capability except that it produced flawless diction with an attractive voice and could detect a question asking if it was a person.
Utter nonsense. You assumed it was a machine and then are drawing conclusions from that.
What I am telling you is that the technology does NOT exist. It doesn't exist using super computers and it most certainly does not exist for standard businesses to use. So it is pointless to discuss how one might differentiate if it was a machine because it was impossible for it to be a machine in the first place.
Michael Breeden wrote: And remember grassjumper, someone who is not looking is very unlikely to find. Numerous studies also demonstrate that.
Presumably you must think that aliens or secret government projects have reached a vast technological limit of AI intelligence and voice recognition and have chosen to share that technology with some random sales company?
|
|
|
|
|
|
So I guess that means that you won't be jumping into AI anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Ultimate Wishlist of the Day:
When you block a sender, the server sends them an email that they've been blocked and they actually remove you from their mailing list. 
|
|
|
|
|
Bad idea.
The server sending them a message tells them yours is a valid email address that is monitored and read: or "prime target" as it is also known.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it would give them the message that it is a valid email, unless one crafts the response as undelivered/unknown recipient error; or something like that to throw them off 
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
Would it throw you off?
'Cause I'm pretty sure I'd see through it... 
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
All depends on how smart they are
"I've seen more information on a frickin' sticky note!" - Dave Kreskowiak
|
|
|
|
|
True. But if this server tells that server that they're being blocked, then you would think that they'd realize it's wasted effort to keep sending. Maybe the entire server needs to be blocked. Like I said, wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but it isn't!
The block will be (normally) from a specific email address or domain - and it's trivial to set up new ones. And all they need is for you to respond to one of them. It's not as is spambots cost anything much to run!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
But I don't want to be the one who responds to them. I want the server to realize I've blocked this guy and not send them to me to go to my junk folder.
|
|
|
|
|
So... whose server? Not theirs, because there is no way they will let their own server ban them from sending cr@p.
Which means it has to be yours - so they still know there is an active email on the other end
It's like images in emails - most email apps don't show them by default any more, because it means reading the image from the originator site, and that means they know the email has been read!
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Which means it has to be yours - so they still know there is an active email on the other end
True. However, I do not need to see all those junk mails going into my junk folder. I'd rather they not come to me at all and stop at my server level.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid the only solution is a cattle prod and a big hammer.
Find where they live, and use the cattle prod to persuade them to stop. Then use the big hammer on their computers.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: When you block a sender, the server
... signs the sender up for a kabillion "newsletters".
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
True. But if this server tells that server that they're being blocked, then you would think that they'd realize it's wasted effort to keep sending. Maybe the entire server needs to be blocked. Like I said, wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
"Wasted effort" is actually the good thing here. As far as spam (AKA really good newsletter that you don't quite remember you signed into ) goes, the more resources they waste on unread messages, the better for rest of us
--
"My software never has bugs. It just develops random features."
|
|
|
|
|
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote: When you block a sender, the server sends them an email that they've been
blocked and they actually remove you from their mailing list.
Companies won't like it, and neither do I.
Send a mail to "everyone@company.com", "sales@company.com", "admin@company.com" and "f***er@company.com", explaining that spam is a offense, and that you are the cure.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
