<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Am I a man or a machine? My role in the hunt for AI ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T10:05:29-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[so, hey, who won the &quot;Most Human Human&quot;?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3670002]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Brian Christian, the guy you mentioned in your article, wrote the book on being the &quot;The Most Human Human&quot;, and won that particular award in 2009.  Did you win this year?  if not, who best champion humanity for us real humans, in this year's contest?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3670002]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[turing_allenturing]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 19:24:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'm rather fascinated by all this...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669570]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...because you don't know whether I'm a human or a bot! ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669570]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LedLincoln]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 06:15:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[This was a pleasant little article.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669471]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And encouraging, I think, for those who don't look forward to a machine takeover.If our understanding of &quot;what makes a human&quot; does not improve markedly, neither the robot takeover fanatics nor the skeptics who think it's impossible will get their way. They are both likely to fall prey to beings from somewhere who understand life better than we do.The real trick that the enemies of humanity could pull would be to pose as humans. The robot suit would be a bit of a giveaway.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669471]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[l_e_cox]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 20:23:36 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'm sure they would]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669346]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Day after day I am deleting spam from my answering machine now, something I didn't have to do even 2 years ago. Pressing 0 on the phone no longer automatically connects you with a human. I think we're starting to see the beginning of it with the popups on certain sites &quot;Hi, I'm Cindy, how can I help you today?&quot; Although if Cindy started telling me she was a cat, I would probably log off.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669346]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mad tabby]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 11:18:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Being self conscious about what you are writing...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669323]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Is probably one of the most human things we do.  The very difficulty expressed in &quot;trying&quot; to type like a human is a very human thing.Watching the whole course of a typed conversation from start to end would probably show a shift from more stilted to less stilted as you become more comfortable.That alone would indicate a human participant IMHO.KJ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669323]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin917]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 09:20:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[What was India like?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669308]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I know I don't have the whole context of the conversation, but am I the only one who thought, &quot;The country or the ink?&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669308]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[don.howard@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 09:16:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You make good points...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669249]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[As to the Turing test being relevant, I can easily imagine a scenario of a company wanting to offer online chat tech support without paying someone to do it.  The &quot;intelligent&quot; software could run through scripts as well as some of the tech support people I have had to work with.  Maybe this is already being done.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669249]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[LedLincoln]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 06:49:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Computers think, but do they enjoy what they do?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669173]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Computers can beat grand masters at chess. Now, I have to admit that I am not very good at chess. However, I can enjoy losing a game to someone who is better than me. I can enjoy the unfolding of the game and the demonstration of my opponent's skills. This is not as unconnected as it might seem. A computer will never enjoy the satisfaction of a well presented game that whilst lost, was closely fought. At the end of the game, the computer is switched off and put in a cupboard until needed.There is a lot more to thinking than a yes:no/right:wrong dichotomy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669173]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Gemmz]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 03:02:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Turing Test]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669156]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Turing Test is a lot more subtle than is being made out. The machine has to be able to fool any person and to do so on an ongoing basis. Turing didn't put a time limit on it, or specify the sort of things that could be discussed. It's not just question and answer.My approach would be to use phychologists, psychiatrists, linguists and others with similar expertise. Try to develop a friendship with the machine, push a few emotional buttons, try to rile it up,.....The other side of the question is whether the Turing Test is relevant. Are we trying to create a clone of a human mind, or something new? What if we don't want it to have human sensibilities, but to still be as intelligent, or more so?Which of course raises the question of whether something can have &quot;intelligence&quot; without the human traits. It's common for writers to describe an entity that acts in every way like a human, but doesn't have &quot;true intelligence&quot; or a true sense of self. I'm not sure that this is even possible. Not because we could not eventually build such a thing, but because the sort of intelligence we recognize includes our human foibles. For example, we assume all people will make mistakes under certain conditions. Will we require our creations to have this sort of built-in flaw before we consider them &quot;intelligent&quot;?Personally, I think we should be looking to define what intelligence is when it's not human-like. What intrinsic characteristics would an intelligent entity have before the average person would agree that it is intelligent? I'm not really interested in creating robot-slaves, but in the more esoteric area of general intelligent and consciousness. But that last word is whole other, possibly even more fraught, discussion.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669156]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dogknees]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 01:54:29 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You mean the bots could have been confused with Tech Republic!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669050]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;At times the bots??? whacked-out patter read like a bad parody of drug-addled conversation.&quot;Yep, sounds like some of the comments in the discussions here at TR!  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-391799-3669050]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wizard57m-cnet]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 13:59:50 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

