Difference between revisions of "Talk:1696: AI Research"
(add note about lambda calculus) |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
I don’t really like the lambda calculus example. Usually you don’t grant yourself the luxury of natural numbers (you use {{w|Church encoding|Church numbers}} instead), let alone a square operator. Introducing them contradicts the previous point about Lambda calculus’ simplicity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.156|162.158.83.156]] 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) | I don’t really like the lambda calculus example. Usually you don’t grant yourself the luxury of natural numbers (you use {{w|Church encoding|Church numbers}} instead), let alone a square operator. Introducing them contradicts the previous point about Lambda calculus’ simplicity. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.83.156|162.158.83.156]] 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Has anyone tried doing this with ChatGPT? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.105|108.162.242.105]] 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:56, 29 January 2024
I'm Australian an I don't know about the "updog" Thing, just sayin' 162.158.2.139 05:15, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm British and I haven't heard of "updog" either. 141.101.98.18 08:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Never heard of that in the two years that I lived in England and South Wales. 141.101.93.49 09:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Saw "updoc" (same joke) on an episode of Scrubs once. 141.101.98.137 11:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've pretty much confirmed that "updog" and similar is not well known in most English-speaking countries. Yay! I was correct after all. (I wrote the first draft for this explanation, which included the question of whether it was or not.) 108.162.219.59 07:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Added a note about how developed AI tech. is nowadays. That one needs a citation. Also I believe a paragraph about the difference between AI and how computers generally work is called for. AI is built on neural networks to mimic the way human brains work. Computers have a more simplistic design, although it works wonders for number crunching and following programs. This contrasted with AI, which can figure out things on its own (learn) and not having to be told everything. Todor (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those stupid chatbots that have existed for decades now are *not real* AI. But you could train those to respond in certain ways. It is quite possible this comic makes fun of this. It is also perceivable that an actual AI without sufficient higher-order reasoning would also easily be fooled, although by trial-and-error learning (that is characteristic for AI) it ought to *eventually* figure out that you are bullshitting it, and adjust its behaviour accordingly. Todor (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I thought it might be a reference to teaching the Urban Dictionary to IBM's Watson 108.162.250.158 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- Oh gods — please don't even mention the Urban Dictionary. A classic example of a good idea gone bad because of little or no moderation. RAGBRAIvet (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
- Part of the joke is that 6 year olds are actually really smart compared to computers. Perhaps it would be easier to pass the Turing test as an adult-like AI then as a child-like AI.162.158.83.180 09:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Another similar joke was used in the cartoon feature movie "South Park: bigger, longer and uncut", with the word "buttfor". "What's the butt for?" - "For pooping, silly". 108.162.244.73 05:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Is it unimaginable that Randall is hoping for people (who don't know about the joke) to google "What is updog?"? 141.101.104.139 12:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I don’t really like the lambda calculus example. Usually you don’t grant yourself the luxury of natural numbers (you use Church numbers instead), let alone a square operator. Introducing them contradicts the previous point about Lambda calculus’ simplicity. 162.158.83.156 12:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Has anyone tried doing this with ChatGPT? 108.162.242.105 13:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
