Posted: 05 Oct 2008 11:14 AM CDT
An annual test will start next Sunday to determine if computers can think well enough to fool judges into believing the computer is human during the "Turing Test." If machines are determined to have a "consciousness" will they then be given "rights"?
Next Sunday six human "interrogators" will sit at six computer split screens with one side of each screen being a human and the other side being computer programs aka "artificial conversational entities". The human "interrogators will then begin text-based conversations on any subject they choose.
Five minutes after the conversations start, the judges will then be asked to determine which answers came from a human and which came from the artificial conversational entities. If the "interrogators" get the answer wrong, choosing the computer or computers instead of the human, then the program will have fooled them and passed the test.
The test itself is called the "Turing test", named after mathematician Alan Turing, who asked a specific question half of a century ago. The question was "Can machines think?"
In a 1951 paper, Alan Turing who helped to crack German military codes during WWII, made a proposal of a test called "The Imitation Game," who he hoped would settle the issue of machine intelligence although no intelligent machine was part of the original game.
Originally the test was to include a man, a woman and a judge, all in separate rooms and the judge had to determine which of the two subjects he was communicating with was the male, with the female trying to trick the judge.
Turing them modified that initial game/test and instead of having a man, woman and judge in three rooms, there would be a human, either a man or a woman, a computer and the judge. The judge then would have to determine which of the two being questioned was human or a machine.
More information can be found on the Turing test, here and here.
No Artificial Intelligence machine has ever passed the test to date.
Artificial Intelligence is a technological science and engineering to make intelligent machines, specifically intelligent computer programs.
There are differing opinions about the Turing test, with Professor Kevin Warwick who is a cyberneticist at the University of Reading, where the test is being conducted, the program needs to only to make 30 percent or more of the interrogators unsure of who is human and who is the computer on their split screens, for the computer to have passed the test according to Turing's criteria.
Warwick admits there will be critics of this test, saying "You can be flippant, you can flirt, it can be on anything. I'm sure there will be philosophers who say, "OK, it's passed the test, but it doesn't understand what it's doing".'
Philosopher AC Grayling from Birkbeck College, University of London is one such critic and he states "The test is misguided. Everyone thinks it's you pitting yourself against a computer and a human, but it's you pitting yourself against a computer and computer programmer. AI is an exciting subject, but the Turing test is pretty crude."
The computer programs taking part in the Turing test are Alice, Brother Jerome, Elbot, Eugene Goostman, Jabberwacky and Ultra Hal.
Loebner Prize in Artificial Intelligence.
The creators of these artificial conversational entities are in competition to win an "18-carat gold medal and $100,000 offered by the Loebner Prize in Artificial Intelligence."
Although Turing proposed this testing procedure in 1951, it wasn't until 1991, 40 years later, the test was truly implemented, by Dr. Hugh Loebner, who wanted to see Artificial Intelligence succeed.
Loebner offered $100,000 to the first entrant who could pass the Turing test. There were problems with the initial test in 1991, so in 1995 the contest was re-opened and has become an annual contest that no one has won to date.
Will Alice, Brother Jerome, Elbot, Eugene Goostman, Jabberwacky or Ultra Hal be the first artificial conversational entity to pass the test and bring us one step closer, technology wise, to a machine which can think and act enough like a human being to fool a judge?
As the original Guardian article points out, if this test is successful, or perhaps the terminology should be "when" this test is eventually successful, will humans then grapple with the issue of consciousness and whether a computer will have a "conscious" and if so, will humans will have the right to turn them of and on.
It wasn't all that long ago, in December of 2006, a British government-commissioned report sponsored by Sir David King, the UK government's chief scientist, brought the question of Robot Rights to the attention of the media and was reported on by Financial Times.
According to one of 270 forward looking papers submitted covered the topic of "robots' rights."
The basic theme is what happens if humans, in their quest for technological advancement, managed to create a machine with a "conscious," and Henrik Christensen who is the director of the Centre of Robotics and Intelligent Machines at the Georgia Institute of Technology stated "If we make conscious robots they would want to have rights and they probably should."
Christensen goes on to make the point "There will be people who can't distinguish that so we need to have ethical rules to make sure we as humans interact with robots in an ethical manner so we do not move our boundaries of what is acceptable."
A report called the The Horizon Scan takes this a step further and speaks of specific rights for robots, stating "If granted full rights, states will be obligated to provide full social benefits to them including income support, housing and possibly robo-healthcare to fix the machines over time."
Posted: 05 Oct 2008 02:07 AM CDT
7 October 2008: Latest Updates
Update No.5 - 4 Oct: Is Northeast Intelligence Network backing off the specificity of their initial warning? This is the latest update from NIN on their 7 October warning. Radarsite has highlighted the pertinent text in bold red. It is perhaps ironic that the first qualification (or semi-rebuttal?) of this alarming article that Radarsite has received should come from the original source itself. Are they beginning to question their own sources? Or are they merely presenting us with additional information? As promised, Radarsite will continue to post all updates. Especially those updates that legitimately bring into question the credibility of the original NIN article. Radarsite recommends reading this latest release from NIN and deciding for yourselves what its significance truly is.
Here is the first segment of their latest report:
Read the entire NIN update here.
It is also important to note that to the best of our knowledge none of the ancillary information (bold red list below) has changed. For example: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
Update No. 4 - 3 Oct: How credible is our source?
Northeast Intelligence Network is run by terrorism specialist Douglas Hagmann. Radarsite has established that Mr. Hagmann and NIN have been extensively quoted as reliable sources by many well-known and respected anti-terrorist websites, most notably perhaps by famed terrorism expert and author Daniel Pipes.
Mr. Hagman has also had the dubious distinction of having a fatwa issued against him by American/Muslim furqa settlements Director and terrorist suspect Sheikh Mubarik Ali Hasmi Shah Gilani for his investigation into New York State's controversial "Islamberg". Gilani, you may recall was the Sheikh Daniel Pearl was on his way to meet when he was kidnapped. Here is one portion of Sheikh Gilani's attack. Note the bizarre accounts of American history.
"In this regard I am going to prove that Douglas J. Hagman and his group are
For more on this subject see:
Posted: 04 Oct 2008 08:27 PM CDT
From AOL News
'Palling Around With Terrorists'
Palin Rips Obama for His Past Ties: Do You Think Her Remarks Are Fair?
This article from AP's Jim Kuhnhenn appeared on the AOL News front page today. I have posted portions of it below. The bold text is mine. This is what we're up against. This, my friends, is what passes for objective journalism in today's America. Could there be any better example of the blatant bias of our leftist media?
How many Americans view articles such as this one uncritically as straightforward reporting? How many Americans swallow this garbage whole? AP's arrogant contempt for the precepts of fair and balanced reporting, it's arrogant contempt for the intelligence and judgment of the average American reader is so assured that they do not even bother attempting to disguise their outrageously skewed 'reporting'. They assume -- with some degree of accuracy -- that they will not be seriously challenged. They assume -- with some degree of accuracy -- that it is they who are running this show.
"Do you think her remarks are fair?" AOL News ask its readers before the article even begins. And there is no shame, no sense of honor, no sense of decency involved in this cynical manipulation of the truth. There are no moral boundaries, no lines that will not be crossed. Articles such as this one -- and there are so many more to choose from -- are what cause me to lose confidence in our righteous cause, to lose confidence in the future of America itself. This is what I'm talking about. This is the ugly truth. We're playing against a stacked deck. The game is fixed. The outcome has been predetermined.
I have -- despite the obvious pessimism that permeates these articles -- not yet lost all hope. I still 'believe in miracles'. But, considering the fact that much of America gets all of its news from morally tainted sources such as these, can only be disheartening. I am not 'giving in' or 'giving up'. I am not a 'defeatist'. But I am shocked and angry. I am disgusted and outraged by what we are becoming, but what we are allowing ourselves to become. Aren't you?
If we, the Republican Party, and, yes, the American people, lose this election, if the dire predictions which we have been so vehemently expressing over these past months and years do indeed come true, if America itself really does lose its meaning and its vital sovereignty, then these traitorous leftist MSM propagandists will bear a major portion of the responsibility for this colossal disaster. They are as complicit in this leftist coup as the Marxist ideologues they pander to. - rg
Palin Says Obama Pals With Terrorists
Posted: 04 Oct 2008 02:20 PM CDT
With one month to go until the November 4th election for presidency, the John McCain campaign will be sharpening their strategy to focus more on his Democratic rival's honesty, judgment and associations. This could prove to be a double edged sword.
November 4 2008, the day of the U.S. presidential election is exactly one month away and it is being reported by the Washington Post, the McCain campaign will start bringing out the big guns or as Jake Tapper from ABC's Political Punch phrases it, opening "up a can of whoop-ass on Obama,", pointing to Barack Obama's judgment with the use of his associations and ties with people like Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and the latest headline news of a former Obama poker pal, Executive Larry Walsh from Will County , and questions leveled by a political opponent about Walsh's connections to a county contractor, which has resulted in questions by the FBI.
This line of attack by the McCain campaign is not without danger, because although many believe a person's associations, ties and business dealings shows quite a bit about a man's character and judgment, and some would say very important to determining whether or not to vote for a specific politician, on the other hand some consider asking such questions as "negative campaigning".
Tapper explains what this latest line of attack will mean:
Meaning you should expect to hear much more about these Obama associates -- some questions fair, others not; many associates legitimately slimy, others mere road kill on this political Autobahn -- in this last full month of the campaign.
Along with the ads which will question Obama's ties to what some call questionable people, such as Rezko, who has recently been convicted of attempted extortion, mail and wire fraud, and aiding and abetting bribery, the McCain campaign has also rolled out "positive" ads such as "Week", and mixed ads combining positive with negative such as "Rein," looking to combine the questions about Obama with ads highlighting McCain's ideas and reasons he believes he would make a better president.
Many predicted the McCain campaign was not hitting these specific issues in the previous months because they were saving it for the last month before the elections, to not allow it to be done and over and forgotten by the public by starting this line of attack too early in the campaign.
Others think the McCain campaign waited too long to start highlighting this type of information.
The Republican candidate himself gave indication of when this new line of attack will be unveiled when at a recent Colorado town hall a member of the audience asked John McCain "When are you going to take the gloves off?" and McCain grinned and answered with "How about Tuesday night?", the implication there is McCain will start with the strategy at the town hall style presidential debate with Barack Obama on Tuesday, with the ads staring immediately after.
[Update] CNN reports Sarah Palin has already started hitting Obama on his association with Ayers by saying "This is someone who sees American as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country."
Let the howling begin, 4...3...2...1...
|You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner|
|Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.|
|If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610|