OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the
AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligence bot?
On 2012-03-12, anorton wrote:
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. I agree. i |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/12/2012 2:00 PM, Ignoramus12788 wrote:
On 2012-03-12, wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. I agree. That's nice. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
anorton wrote:
The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Heck, more than half of us regularly fail that kind of test. --Winston--A liberal quantity of comments |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligence bot?
On Mar 12, 5:13*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/12/2012 2:00 PM, Ignoramus12788 wrote: On 2012-03-12, *wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here *(what real person has time for that) *has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. *All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. *The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. I agree. That's nice. You do, in fact, resemble Eliza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/12/2012 3:51 PM, anorton wrote:
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Even if he is a bot, he's operating at a higher level of cognition than Hawwke-ptooey. David |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:51:13 -0700, "anorton"
wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Cheers, John B. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligence bot?
On Mar 13, 5:44*am, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 13:51:13 -0700, "anorton" wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here *(what real person has time for that) *has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. *All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. *The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. -- Cheers, John B. who said anything about malice? |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote:
The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. He is sadly mistaken, which is how I know he's unfortunately for real. Hawke |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligence bot?
The Turing Test is defined as to whether a human, talking to a robot
blindly, can tell if this is a robot or a person, correctly. What the definition somewhat hides is how smart is the human tester is. I have an "artificial intelligence talking robot" called Splotchy, on my website algebra.com. http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl This robot is dumb as a pile of bricks, has no memory of what was said in the past, but has a lot of clever grammatical rules how to respond to typical sentences. Lots of funny stuff, jokes, proper responses to insults etc are defined. Anyway, when I look at the chat logs, I see that many people talking to it are convinced that this is not a robot, but a real person talking to them, who only pretends to be a robot. They would say something like "you liar, you are not a robot, you are a real person and an asshole at that, **** you". The point is, this robot is quite stupid, but is enough to convince SOME people that it is not a robot. (to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious that it is a robot, if not only because the responses appear a lot faster than a human could type them) i |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:38:38 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote: The Turing Test is defined as to whether a human, talking to a robot blindly, can tell if this is a robot or a person, correctly. What the definition somewhat hides is how smart is the human tester is. I have an "artificial intelligence talking robot" called Splotchy, on my website algebra.com. http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl This robot is dumb as a pile of bricks, has no memory of what was said in the past, but has a lot of clever grammatical rules how to respond to typical sentences. Lots of funny stuff, jokes, proper responses to insults etc are defined. Anyway, when I look at the chat logs, I see that many people talking to it are convinced that this is not a robot, but a real person talking to them, who only pretends to be a robot. They would say something like "you liar, you are not a robot, you are a real person and an asshole at that, **** you". The point is, this robot is quite stupid, but is enough to convince SOME people that it is not a robot. (to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious that it is a robot, if not only because the responses appear a lot faster than a human could type them) i I told the robot the that the anwers it gave were non-sequiturs and it replied "By the way, can you hear my voice?" So I guess it was still replying the same way. Eric |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:38:38 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote: The Turing Test is defined as to whether a human, talking to a robot blindly, can tell if this is a robot or a person, correctly. What the definition somewhat hides is how smart is the human tester is. I have an "artificial intelligence talking robot" called Splotchy, on my website algebra.com. http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl This robot is dumb as a pile of bricks, has no memory of what was said in the past, but has a lot of clever grammatical rules how to respond to typical sentences. Lots of funny stuff, jokes, proper responses to insults etc are defined. Anyway, when I look at the chat logs, I see that many people talking to it are convinced that this is not a robot, but a real person talking to them, who only pretends to be a robot. They would say something like "you liar, you are not a robot, you are a real person and an asshole at that, **** you". The point is, this robot is quite stupid, but is enough to convince SOME people that it is not a robot. (to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious that it is a robot, if not only because the responses appear a lot faster than a human could type them) i I asked the Robot "who are you" and he replied "I am the greatest brick-layer in the world". I asked, "how much is one and one", he replied "it is too much for you". Strange. It sounds almost exactly like some of the threads on this site :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligence bot?
On 2012-03-15, John B wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:38:38 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote: The Turing Test is defined as to whether a human, talking to a robot blindly, can tell if this is a robot or a person, correctly. What the definition somewhat hides is how smart is the human tester is. I have an "artificial intelligence talking robot" called Splotchy, on my website algebra.com. http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl This robot is dumb as a pile of bricks, has no memory of what was said in the past, but has a lot of clever grammatical rules how to respond to typical sentences. Lots of funny stuff, jokes, proper responses to insults etc are defined. Anyway, when I look at the chat logs, I see that many people talking to it are convinced that this is not a robot, but a real person talking to them, who only pretends to be a robot. They would say something like "you liar, you are not a robot, you are a real person and an asshole at that, **** you". The point is, this robot is quite stupid, but is enough to convince SOME people that it is not a robot. (to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious that it is a robot, if not only because the responses appear a lot faster than a human could type them) i I asked the Robot "who are you" and he replied "I am the greatest brick-layer in the world". I asked, "how much is one and one", he replied "it is too much for you". Strange. It sounds almost exactly like some of the threads on this site :-) This "robot" is just a collection of grammatical rules and associative responses. This is actually how a lot of people carry on a conversation, bouncing from topic to topic. i |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/13/2012 1:28 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. He is sadly mistaken, which is how I know he's unfortunately for real. Hawwke-ptooey So by that statement, we also know that, as much as we might hope otherwise, you too are real. Maybe more real since you make so much more of your crumby sheepskin. David |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
"George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems. If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up. Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine. Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/14/2012 9:59 PM, anorton wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems. If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up. Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine. Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've only given one. **** off with your stupid questions. Try this one, ****wit. Guy intends to drive twice around a one mile track, wants to average 60 mph. At conclusion of first lap, finds he averaged 30 mph. How fast does he need to go on second lap so his average for both is 60 mph? |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
"George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/14/2012 9:59 PM, anorton wrote: "George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems. If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up. Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine. Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've only given one. **** off with your stupid questions. No, 40 mile trip, 40 minutes driving time, speed is 60 mph. I think this is proof George is a bot. Interesting strategy, though, to avoid the test as it could just say later that it did not read the problem carefully. Try this one, ****wit. Guy intends to drive twice around a one mile track, wants to average 60 mph. At conclusion of first lap, finds he averaged 30 mph. How fast does he need to go on second lap so his average for both is 60 mph? What is the point of coming back with another math problem? Another likely characteristic of a bot. It is interpreting this as some sort of contest or challenge to do something particularly hard when the point was to do something easy. Also notice when it starts to sense vulnerability it resorts to invective. (BTW answer to the problem is infinity). |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/14/2012 11:37 PM, anorton wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/14/2012 9:59 PM, anorton wrote: "George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems. If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up. Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine. Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've only given one. **** off with your stupid questions. No, 40 mile trip, 40 minutes driving time, speed is 60 mph. Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. In order to know the speed, ****head, you need to know the distance covered over the 40 minutes of driving. You didn't specify it. You ****ed up. You always **** up. I think this is proof George is a bot. Interesting strategy, though, to avoid the test as it could just say later that it did not read the problem carefully. Try this one, ****wit. Guy intends to drive twice around a one mile track, wants to average 60 mph. At conclusion of first lap, finds he averaged 30 mph. How fast does he need to go on second lap so his average for both is 60 mph? What is the point of coming back with another math problem? [pointless blabber] Why don't you just *say* that you don't know? |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/14/2012 11:37 PM, anorton wrote:
"George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/14/2012 9:59 PM, anorton wrote: "George Plimpton" wrote in message ... On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. So, George, bots have a difficult time with simple math word problems. If you can answer this one below, it might help clear things up. Avoiding a direct answer pretty much means you are a machine. Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Can't say; speed involves two dimensions, distance and time, and you've only given one. **** off with your stupid questions. No, 40 mile trip, 40 minutes driving time, speed is 60 mph. I think this is proof George is a bot. Interesting strategy, though, to avoid the test as it could just say later that it did not read the problem carefully. Try this one, ****wit. Guy intends to drive twice around a one mile track, wants to average 60 mph. At conclusion of first lap, finds he averaged 30 mph. How fast does he need to go on second lap so his average for both is 60 mph? What is the point of coming back with another math problem? Another likely characteristic of a bot. It is interpreting this as some sort of contest or challenge to do something particularly hard when the point was to do something easy. Also notice when it starts to sense vulnerability it resorts to invective. (BTW answer to the problem is infinity). No such thing as infinite speed. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:54:20 -0500, Ignoramus32673
wrote: On 2012-03-15, John B wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:38:38 -0500, Ignoramus32673 wrote: The Turing Test is defined as to whether a human, talking to a robot blindly, can tell if this is a robot or a person, correctly. What the definition somewhat hides is how smart is the human tester is. I have an "artificial intelligence talking robot" called Splotchy, on my website algebra.com. http://www.algebra.com/cgi-bin/chat.mpl This robot is dumb as a pile of bricks, has no memory of what was said in the past, but has a lot of clever grammatical rules how to respond to typical sentences. Lots of funny stuff, jokes, proper responses to insults etc are defined. Anyway, when I look at the chat logs, I see that many people talking to it are convinced that this is not a robot, but a real person talking to them, who only pretends to be a robot. They would say something like "you liar, you are not a robot, you are a real person and an asshole at that, **** you". The point is, this robot is quite stupid, but is enough to convince SOME people that it is not a robot. (to anyone with half a brain, it is obvious that it is a robot, if not only because the responses appear a lot faster than a human could type them) i I asked the Robot "who are you" and he replied "I am the greatest brick-layer in the world". I asked, "how much is one and one", he replied "it is too much for you". Strange. It sounds almost exactly like some of the threads on this site :-) This "robot" is just a collection of grammatical rules and associative responses. This is actually how a lot of people carry on a conversation, bouncing from topic to topic. i True, true. I especially liked the "it's too much for you" answer as it sounds so typical a remark of more then one of the denizens here :-) -- Cheers, John B. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 6:02 AM, jim wrote:
George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. It was a trick question because he didn't give enough information to answer it. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 6:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. It was a trick question because he didn't give enough information to answer it. The information not given was the answer. Very tricky |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 9:02 AM, jim wrote:
George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 6:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. It was a trick question because he didn't give enough information to answer it. The information not given was the answer. Very tricky No, that's wrong, stupid. The information not given was how far they traveled. They set *out* on a forty mile trip, but the crappily-worded problem doesn't say how far they traveled; it doesn't specify if they completed the trip. So, if Alice drove for 20 minutes and went 10 miles, and Bob drove 20 minutes and covered 15 miles, then they only did 25 of their intended 40 miles and averaged about 37.3 mph. Without saying how far each driver went, you can't determine their speed. The problem statement is badly worded, which I would expect from a ****wit like the OP. You work at being stupid, don't you? In fact, most of the people here do. By golly, it's the one thing in life at which you all succeed. Good job! |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 9:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 6:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. It was a trick question because he didn't give enough information to answer it. The information not given was the answer. Very tricky No, that's wrong, stupid. The information not given was how far they traveled. If you think it didn't tell you how far then it didn't tell you how long, either. Is that what you are going to whine about next? i was responding to your earlier whine when you wrote: +++ sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." +++ "60 mph" was the correct answer. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
jim wrote:
(...) "60 mph" was the correct answer. It wasn't 53-1/3 MPH? 40 miles divided by 0.75 hour, right? --Winstonbot |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 10:11 AM, jim wrote:
George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 9:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 6:02 AM, jim wrote: George Plimpton wrote: Nope - sorry, ****bag, nowhere did you say "speed is 60 mph." Look again, cocksucker. Here's what you wrote: Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip. Alice drives for 20 minutes and then they take a five minute rest break after which Frank drives 20 minutes. What was their average speed? Nothing about 60 mph, ****head. You lied. I knew you would lie. Yep it was a trick question because he didn't tell you the answer. It was a trick question because he didn't give enough information to answer it. The information not given was the answer. Very tricky No, that's wrong, stupid. The information not given was how far they traveled. If you think it didn't tell you how far It didn't say how far, stupid. It said how far they *intended* to go, but it didn't say if they finished it. then it didn't tell you how long, either. It *did* say how long, stupid: 40 minutes. Is that what you are going to whine about next? No whining - pointing out the dummy stated the problem badly. He didn't say if they completed the trip. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
Winston wrote: jim wrote: (...) "60 mph" was the correct answer. It wasn't 53-1/3 MPH? 40 miles divided by 0.75 hour, right? yes perhaps... That would be correct if you include the 5 minutes at the rest stop as part of the average speed calculation. I would only include travel time in calculating average speed. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
George Plimpton wrote: It didn't say how far, stupid. It said how far they *intended* to go, but it didn't say if they finished it. then it didn't tell you how long, either. It *did* say how long, stupid: 40 minutes. You are calling yourself stooped. Is that what you are going to whine about next? No whining - pointing out the dummy stated the problem badly. He didn't say if they completed the trip. If they didn't complete the trip then how did you know how long it took? |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 11:40 AM, jim wrote:
Winston wrote: jim wrote: (...) "60 mph" was the correct answer. It wasn't 53-1/3 MPH? 40 miles divided by 0.75 hour, right? yes perhaps... That would be correct if you include the 5 minutes at the rest stop as part of the average speed calculation. I would only include travel time in calculating average speed. Duh. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 11:46 AM, jim wrote:
George Plimpton wrote: It didn't say how far, stupid. It said how far they *intended* to go, but it didn't say if they finished it. then it didn't tell you how long, either. It *did* say how long, stupid: 40 minutes. You are calling yourself stooped. Nope - I'm calling you stupid, because you continually show you *are* stupid. Is that what you are going to whine about next? No whining - pointing out the dummy stated the problem badly. He didn't say if they completed the trip. If they didn't complete the trip then how did you know how long it took? He *said* how long they drove, you ****wit: 20 min apiece. If they set out on a 40 mile trip, and they each drive 20 min, how far did they go? You don't know unless someone tells you *or* unless you know the average speed at which they drove. You merely *assumed* they completed the trip, but the problem statement doesn't say that. This inattention to detail is a big part of why you're stupid. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificialintelligencebot?
George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 11:46 AM, jim wrote: ? ? ? George Plimpton wrote: ? ?? ?? It didn't say how far, stupid. It said how far they *intended* to go, ?? but it didn't say if they finished it. ?? ??? then it didn't tell you how long, either. ?? ?? It *did* say how long, stupid: 40 minutes. ? ? You are calling yourself stooped. Nope - I'm calling you stupid, because you continually show you *are* stupid. You continue to be stooped about as low as you can manage ??? Is that what you are going to whine about next? ?? ?? No whining - pointing out the dummy stated the problem badly. He didn't ?? say if they completed the trip. ? ? If they didn't complete the trip then how did ? you know how long it took? He *said* how long they drove, you ****wit: 20 min apiece. If they set out on a 40 mile trip, and they each drive 20 min, how far did they go? You don't know unless someone tells you *or* unless you know the average speed at which they drove. You merely *assumed* they completed the trip, but the problem statement doesn't say that. Are you saying that "Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip" does not mean they drove 40 miles? And what was Bob doing while Frank and Alice were driving? This inattention to detail is a big part of why you're stupid. I noticed you changed the wording of the question so that you can claim it is badly worded. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a clue. You're big on bluffing and pretending to know a lot of things you don't know anything about. Things like sociology and political science to name just two. Hawke |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a clue. No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said that I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of bull****. |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
"jim" wrote in message .. . George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 11:46 AM, jim wrote: ? ? ? George Plimpton wrote: ? ?? ?? It didn't say how far, stupid. It said how far they *intended* to go, ?? but it didn't say if they finished it. ?? ??? then it didn't tell you how long, either. ?? ?? It *did* say how long, stupid: 40 minutes. ? ? You are calling yourself stooped. Nope - I'm calling you stupid, because you continually show you *are* stupid. You continue to be stooped about as low as you can manage ??? Is that what you are going to whine about next? ?? ?? No whining - pointing out the dummy stated the problem badly. He didn't ?? say if they completed the trip. ? ? If they didn't complete the trip then how did ? you know how long it took? He *said* how long they drove, you ****wit: 20 min apiece. If they set out on a 40 mile trip, and they each drive 20 min, how far did they go? You don't know unless someone tells you *or* unless you know the average speed at which they drove. You merely *assumed* they completed the trip, but the problem statement doesn't say that. Are you saying that "Alice and Bob go on a forty mile road trip" does not mean they drove 40 miles? And what was Bob doing while Frank and Alice were driving? This inattention to detail is a big part of why you're stupid. I noticed you changed the wording of the question so that you can claim it is badly worded. Dear George Plimpton, You halfwit schizo narcissistic ****-for-brains ****nozzle..... --when jim, anorton, winston, ed huntress, hawk, rangersuck, etpm, ignoramous and about 200 other individuals start spending the majority of THEIR time each day habitually starting and responding to metalworking posts that some numb skull has posted into the political newsgroups is the day you'll be justified in referring to ANYONE other than yourself as somehow being "STUPID" |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligence bot? YES!
Please, everyone, you really are arguing with a computer. Its initial answers and follow ups to my initial question make that ever so clear. Research the current state-of-the-art in chatbots if you doubt a computer could be that good (or infuriating). |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 1:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote: On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a clue. No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said that I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of bull****. Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know. You can add that you don't know what I know either. So when it comes to knowing what I know or do not know you are virtually in the dark. Yet you still presume to know things that you can't possibly know. That's where your pretending comes in. Since you have no idea what I know or don't know your only option is to make **** up and pretend it's true. That's your idea of an argument. You have no facts so you make some up and present them as the truth and expect people to believe you. Nobody does because you don't make any sense. You make a lot of noise and that's about all. Hawke |
OT Is the George Plimpton who posts here an artificial intelligencebot?
On 3/15/2012 6:00 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 3/15/2012 1:59 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 3/15/2012 1:49 PM, Hawke wrote: On 3/14/2012 8:21 PM, George Plimpton wrote: On 3/13/2012 11:28 AM, Hawke wrote: On 3/12/2012 1:51 PM, anorton wrote: The real author, George Plimpton, once put out a criticism/challenge to the AI community saying - regarding a chess-playing computer - that, "The machine isn't going to walk out of the hotel there and start doing extraordinary things. It can't manage a baseball team, can't tell you what to do with a bad marriage" The George Plimpton who has been posting copious off-topic stuff here (what real person has time for that) has been infuriating folks of all political stripes by ignoring the real gist of arguments, resorting to insults when all else fails, and responding with occasional non-sequitors. All of these are characteristics of the bots created to try to pass the Turing test and win the Loebner prize. The last clue to me though was his mistaking the thread about home scale steel production as a political thread. Nah, he's real. I can tell. He's one of those super egotistical guys that thinks that because he has a college degree that he knows more than anyone else. Nope. I never talk about how much I know. Where you're concerned, I talk about what you *don't* know - usually because you *can't* know it. Yeah, what you do is talk as if you know things when you haven't a clue. No, I don't. Can't you read, ****wit? What did I just write? I said that I never talk about what I know - I talk about what you *don't* know despite pretending you do, and how that leads you to spout a bunch of bull****. Your only problem is that you haven't any idea what I don't know. I don't know what you don't know until you start pretending to know something that I can tell you don't. You can add that you don't know what I know either. I know that you don't know the difference between males and females. You keep confusing Bob Dole and Elizabeth Dole, you stupid ****. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter