On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
[Bit off-topic, but has anyone read that book?]
I have got it, but haven't finished it yet. Andrew spoke at the recent
GLAM-Wiki event last year, which has audio available [1]. There are
lots of good talks at that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647
Robots could soon have an equivalent of the internet and Wikipedia.
Do you think they will let humans edit their Wikipedia?
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
Linkypedia kind of turns Wikipedia inside out, and lets content
publishers see what articles reference their content. So for example
the British Museum can see what Wikipedia articles reference their
site [3]. And folks who are
Just as we have no way of knowing which of our editors are AIs who
have passed the Turing test, I doubt if they will be able to tell
which of their editors are humans who can pass a reverse Turing test.
Incidentally one of my friends who is in that line of work reckoned
that there probably isn't
Most humans see the world their own way and there's very little
standardization going on.
Fred
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12400647
Robots could soon have an equivalent of the internet and Wikipedia.
Do you think they will let humans edit their Wikipedia?
Carcharoth
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 3:47 PM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/AI_accounts
Asking AI candidates at RFA if their operator will switch them off if
they pass is considered by some to be incivil or tactless.
LOL! :-)
On 04/02/2011, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a
goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we
need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really
complicated to fit every corner case.
Re Ian Woolard's query:
As the Wikipedia moves towards some arbitrary definition of notional
'completion', can anyone point to a board or mechanism in the
Wikipedia which is specifically for maintaining and ensuring technical
accuracy of articles?
I'm not sure who if anyone thinks we are
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/02/2011, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a
goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we
need some rules to organize our
While no robot has passed the official Turing test (though many have
passed highly simplified versions of it), the idea of a central AI
system is an innovative one-- just think, Wikipository-- the
information repository that any robot can contribute to--
Intelligent robots are programmed to be
What I think is happening is that most of the articles (most of the
major topics) have been created, and most people, many of them newcomers
or laypeople, are not aware that anyone can come in and expand articles
that have been started but not finished - coincidentally about 1/3 or so
I
On 8 February 2011 14:35, Ed Summers e...@pobox.com wrote:
Linkypedia kind of turns Wikipedia inside out, and lets content
publishers see what articles reference their content. So for example
the British Museum can see what Wikipedia articles reference their
site [3]. And folks who are
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a
goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we
need some rules to organize our work. Third, we make the rules really
complicated to fit every corner case. Fourth, we completely forget the
goal of
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
While no robot has passed the official Turing test (though many have
passed highly simplified versions of it), the idea of a central AI
system is an innovative one-- just think, Wikipository-- the
information
On 2/9/2011 5:22 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
While no robot has passed the official Turing test (though many have
passed highly simplified versions of it), the idea of a central AI
system is an innovative one--
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:22 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
While no robot has passed the official Turing test (though many have
passed
On 2/9/2011 6:21 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/9/2011 5:22 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:11 PM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.comwrote:
While no robot has passed the
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Bob the Wikipedian
bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
They could probably set up listeners to monitor for activity like that
and enforce a 1RR-- where if two bots successively reverted one another,
a counseling agent would slip in and request they stop. The
18 matches
Mail list logo
