In the long run all relationships are doomed, to infidelity, misfortune or basic mortality, the house always wins;
Also, they forgot the banana smoothie! :-oOops, so they did. Unless... wait, we see all of everyone's hands, EXCEPT the fingertips on Marten's right hand. He's carrying a bag. Problem solved!
Also, they forgot the banana smoothie! :-oOops, so they did. Unless... wait, we see all of everyone's hands, EXCEPT the fingertips on Marten's right hand. He's carrying a bag. Problem solved!
Also, they forgot the banana smoothie! :-oOops, so they did. Unless... wait, we see all of everyone's hands, EXCEPT the fingertips on Marten's right hand. He's carrying a bag. Problem solved!
In fact, as the only surviving visible relationship, they ought to be utterly screwed. Right now though, that's just Angus (lucky sod).
I said visible for a reason, though they're barely even that… before 2273 all we had to go on was that neither of them had turned up saying they'd broken up yet.In fact, as the only surviving visible relationship, they ought to be utterly screwed. Right now though, that's just Angus (lucky sod).
Cosette and Steve.
As for Cosette and Steve, when was the last time we saw either of them?
Also, they forgot the banana smoothie! :-o
Nice touch with Tai wearing the Kluwe jersey.
I really wanna know how she kept a banana in her butt pocket without smashing it.
In hindsight, that sounded way better in my head.
Nice touch with Tai wearing the Kluwe jersey.
@jephjacques Dude. Last night's game was bad enough. You HAD to put Tai in a Favre Vikings jersey, too? #packers
Poor Claire. Going through life feeling like the world around you was -- in ways calculated to irritate but to never quite rise to the level where doing anything about it is justified -- going slowly batshit.
:psyduck:
That.
Was.
A.
BRETT.
FAVRE.
MINNESOTA.
VIKINGS.
JERSEY!!!
(ponders going all "Hannelore's Finally Flipped Out" on the entirety of Northampton)
(figures Momo would probably end up tazing him)
(goes back to banging head on desk after seeing the 1,000,000th replay of the last play of the Seattle-Green Bay game)
Even in QC punters are people too.
As for Cosette and Steve, when was the last time we saw either of them?
Emmilore? Hanily?What, like the ST:V episode Tuvix?
That's one hell of a transporter accident.
Isn't that the same effect as used for the Alliance player in the alley?
Hmm, Emily or Hannelore?
Maybe we could combine them like Voltron?
Or, with Marten (the token boy), Faye, and Raven, they can combine their power rings to summon the mighty Shieldmaiden of Space…
I really wanna know how she kept a banana in her butt pocket without smashing it.
In hindsight, that sounded way better in my head.
Or, with Marten (the token boy), Faye, and Raven, they can combine their power rings to summon the mighty Shieldmaiden of Space…I imagine the CoD girls as the Knight Sabers with Marten as Nigel the mechanic... Hmm... That would put Angus in the role of Leon the AD Police officer, so perhaps not.
Here, Emily's eyes are quite literally glowing, like some demon unleashed by (briefly) implied angerIt's very manga. Let's just be thankful that Jeph rarely indulges in sweat-drops, bulging forehead-veins etc.
Oh my God, she HAS a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/EmilyAzuma).
Here, Emily's eyes are quite literally glowing, like some demon unleashed by (briefly) implied angerIt's very manga. Let's just be thankful that Jeph rarely indulges in sweat-drops, bulging forehead-veins etc.
Oh my God, she HAS a Twitter account (https://twitter.com/EmilyAzuma).
Emmilore? Hanily?no worse than Tuvix
That's one hell of a transporter accident.
Yep, I've read quite a bit of manga, myself.Yeah... Sorry, I was a bit stating the obvious.
And judging by the last name, she's Japanese. Which makes it even more hilarious that she's never heard of anime :psyduck:A Chinese girl with a Japanese forum-handle is in no position to point the finger, so I'm not saying a word.
Wow, Emily's outfit is surprisingly cute in this strip. She needs to stop wearing clashing colors.I don't know what this means. I went back to the last Emily appearance and thought her clothes then (2250) looked better than the clothes today. I mean, it's it's just what I think looks better, but yeah. Clashing colors?
Yep, I've read quite a bit of manga, myself.Yeah... Sorry, I was a bit stating the obvious.QuoteAnd judging by the last name, she's Japanese. Which makes it even more hilarious that she's never heard of anime :psyduck:A Chinese girl with a Japanese forum-handle is in no position to point the finger, so I'm not saying a word.
And judging by the last name, she's Japanese.
Jeph is really into "Emily is weird" stuff lately. It's kind of funny but not my cup of tea I guess.
words
Jeph's comment further implies that sufficient time has passed (since ratification) for Emily to understand that questions of ownership and function (i.e. purpose) should be considered highly insulting.
I would be missing a chance to add confusion if I didn't point out that "Akima" is a Finnish name.Confirming this, but it is very rare. I would have guessed that it is a local variant of German 'Joachim', and thus an exclusively male name (so I never thought that the definitely female forumite would have taken a Finnish name). I did a quick search with the engine of our census bureau. There are currently less than ten living persons in Finland with first name Akima (normally they give exact figures, but they make an exception with rare names to protect the privacy of those individuals). At least one of them is a woman. They were all born some time between 1900 and 1919. It is safe to say that it is out of fashion as a first name in these parts.
No different than asking people "you mean your owner?" ...
Contract aside, the relationship between Marigold and Momo is very much different, clearly one that exists on much more equal footing. Regarding today's comic - it is interesting that:
a) Momo is not "owned" by Marigold, since it's been fairly well established that Marten owns Pintsize and that PT410X also has an owner. (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1105) (In that comic, though, note that PT410X puts the word 'owner' in quotes. He doesn't consider himself owned - he had self-declared his independence before it was even law.)
b) Momo called the contract "standard." That would seem to imply said contract was not only established, but commonplace at the time that Marigold and Momo signed it. That means that the AIERA has already been established for a significant amount of time, long enough for its changes to no longer be a cause to bat an eyelash. Jeph's comment further implies that sufficient time has passed (since ratification) for Emily to understand that questions of ownership and function (i.e. purpose) should be considered highly insulting.
Huh. I woulda sworn that Jeph would've chosen Emily's name to be Osaka...
I miss BSG.....I thought I would, then they had that horrendous ending...but that's for ENJOY.
Also, is it a crime to upgrade an AnthroPC against their will? Like if you took an AI that was perfectly comfortable being a toaster and forced it into a full-size chassis? Would that be the equivalent of torture? Would people have to invent new terminology for something like that?
And judging by the last name, she's Japanese.
More than that, her name's a straight shout-out to the author of Azumanga Daioh, which is one of Jeph's big influences.
I'm a little surprised by Jeph's saying that the questions are really offensive, though. They seem a little naive, bordering on tactless, but really no different from the sort of questions that form part of small-talk in our universe.
Asking Momo why she isn't a toaster might be like asking an African-American doctor why she isn't in a minstrel show.I couldn't disagree more, considering she's saying she'd want to be a toaster. I'd say it's more asking a doctor why they're a doctor and not whatever your dream job is. Odd, sure, but not prejudiced.
... Didn't Jeph say the word "owner" has now become politically incorrect?
...
There was a scene in the LANPark where one of the AnthroPCs had been modded without his permission. That would presumably be illegal today.
Granted, she was just reciting a Sony ad text at that time and had just moved in to live with Marigold, but even so...You know, I hadn't even considered that she'd just moved in with Marigold, I assumed Marbear had just moved into that apartment and that she'd had Momo for years.
There was something else that I was wondering, and thank you to Skewbrow for reminding me of it. Momo was expressly made by Sony. Sony does not strike me as a company to make AI just for the hell of it. They presumably started making AI to sell to people, which means that somewhere down the line, Sony made money FROM CREATING A THINKING BEING. Now maybe I'm just being a prude or misunderstanding the situation in a critical way, but that strikes me as being pretty unethical. Sure, other fictional universes have AI being created for profit (Tyrell Corp. and Weyland-Yutani, just off the top of my head), but those were clearly dystopian futures whereas QC is clearly not.
So I'm wondering how the AIERA affected the creation of AI? Are only AI allowed to create other AI now? I honestly can't see how anyone would be able to create AI for profit with the AIERA in place, as the underlying assumption on creating AI for profit is that they are indeed property.
AI making more AI? This can only mean one thing...Would that be like when Bender and the Slurm dispenser made a robot baby? So the robot/anthropc DNA of both AIs get combined to form offspring.
D'AAAW ADORABUL WITTLE AI BABBIES~~~
You created me, Mom, so I guess you're to blame
for the love that I feel just from hearing your name.
You're as tender as corned beef and warm as pastrami.
(do do do do do) I love my mommy! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csxGJv89lJ0)
I'm picturing the Puppet Master + Kusanagi.
Oh, Emily, you'd make toast fun.
Hmm. Momo's own perception of her relation with Marigold has changed over the course of the comic. In 1298 she was still talking about "my owner's interests". (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298) Granted, she was just reciting a Sony ad text at that time and had just moved in to live with Marigold, but even so...Pretty sure that Momo referred to Marigold as her owner in the same story arc Marigold was introduced in as well. And I'm half certain she's done it more recently than that.
Are we certain comic history isn't being retconned just to screw with us?I don't think we can ever be certain of that.
I'm picturing the Puppet Master + Kusanagi.
Waitwaitwait,(click to show/hide)
There was something else that I was wondering, and thank you to Skewbrow for reminding me of it. Momo was expressly made by Sony. Sony does not strike me as a company to make AI just for the hell of it. They presumably started making AI to sell to people, which means that somewhere down the line, Sony made money FROM CREATING A THINKING BEING. Now maybe I'm just being a prude or misunderstanding the situation in a critical way, but that strikes me as being pretty unethical. Sure, other fictional universes have AI being created for profit (Tyrell Corp. and Weyland-Yutani, just off the top of my head), but those were clearly dystopian futures whereas QC is clearly not.
So I'm wondering how the AIERA affected the creation of AI? Are only AI allowed to create other AI now? I honestly can't see how anyone would be able to create AI for profit with the AIERA in place, as the underlying assumption on creating AI for profit is that they are indeed property.
Momo was expressly made by Sony. Sony does not strike me as a company to make AI just for the hell of it. They presumably started making AI to sell to people, which means that somewhere down the line, Sony made money FROM CREATING A THINKING BEING.
I'm picturing the Puppet Master + Kusanagi.
Waitwaitwait,(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Mind you I have not read or watched it in years, so I might be a little off on details.
D'AAAW ADORABUL WITTLE AI BABBIES~~~
You forgot about Winslow.It was late, and I only needed one example.
I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.Jeph's comment further implies that sufficient time has passed (since ratification) for Emily to understand that questions of ownership and function (i.e. purpose) should be considered highly insulting.
But why should they be? This is surely no different to us asking people about their jobs and partnership status, which, as I said before, is typical of party small-talk.
Anyway, yeah, its clear that Marigold doesn't consider herself to be the "owner" of Momo either. Else that whole thing about Momo "paying her back for the chassis" would be really weird. I mean, I don't expect my laptop to compensate me for upgrading its RAM or whatever.Well, the analogy doesn't quite fly. Note that everyone who owns/is contracted with an AnthroPC also has their own computer. So AnthroPC's serve a completely different emotional purpose than regular computers. If your laptop was your friend and would feel better if he/she paid you back, then you might feel differently. Also, Marigold wasn't planning to spend nearly that much for a new chassis - so in exchange for going so far out of her price range, Marigold agreed to let Momo pay her back. It'd probably be more equitable if Momo only paid back the difference the actual price and what Marigold was planning to spend... but who knows how that'll play out.
So AnthroPC's serve a completely different emotional purpose than regular computers.
Of course, Panel 3 still doesn't explain Pintsize.Nothing explains Pintsize.
the rules of the universe are being rewritten, and now terms like "owner" are badly politically incorrect.
That iPod-like device that Momo's plugging into her ear makes me wonder about AI's. Was she listening to music? Downloading a portion of the library catalog for her job? Uploading surveillance information on human interactions to the mothership?I guess one question to ask in response to this is, what sort of processing power do AnthroPCs have? The sorts of AI being displayed here is mind-bogglingly complex (yes, even Pintsize), and depending on how "recent" AI advances are in the QCverse, it would take a buttload of processing power, RAM and storage space to contain and manage it.
At any rate, I'm guessing that human consciousness is actually so taxing for AI's to replicate that the vastly superior computing power is only just able to keep up. Otherwise, you've got a little creature like Pintsize actually only devoting a small portion of its mind to wacky hijinks, while the other 80% of his consciousness is doing...god knows what.
For what it's worth, at the time of her chassis upgrade, Momo was 2.7 years old. (See strips 1995 and 2009)Granted, she was just reciting a Sony ad text at that time and had just moved in to live with Marigold, but even so...You know, I hadn't even considered that she'd just moved in with Marigold, I assumed Marbear had just moved into that apartment and that she'd had Momo for years.
I spent AI 101 looking at cat gifs.First sensible thing Emily's ever said.
the rules of the universe are being rewritten, and now terms like "owner" are badly politically incorrect.
The problem that leads to the differing points of view in the forum is that the QC world has undergone fundamental changes in the relationship between humans and AIs as Jeph has explored this interest of his more deeply. As the time represented in the whole of QC is no more than about two years, this means either that the situation in the QC universe has only just changed - in which case Emily falling into old habits of speaking is not surprising - or that the current QC universe is not the same as that represented in the earlier comics - in which case confusion among the readers is not surprising.
A number of things would be explained if Pintsize were a hand-me-down from Veronica Vance, though in that case I'd expect him to have learned to be better behaved.
I guess one question to ask in response to this is, what sort of processing power do AnthroPCs have? The sorts of AI being displayed here is mind-bogglingly complex (yes, even Pintsize), and depending on how "recent" AI advances are in the QCverse, it would take a buttload of processing power, RAM and storage space to contain and manage it.Allegedly, Pintsize only had 512Mb and Winslow 1Gb! http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=629
I would have thought that Emily, who is a computer science major, (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=2207) would be aware of these things.
I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
Any idea how long AIs have existed in QC-time?
Only if you accept the concept of Word of God, which you are under no obligation to do.I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
Word of God. If Jeph says it's insulting within the canon universe, then it is. It may not be offensive irl, but in QC, Jeph is the creator. He decides how things are, and so long as they don't infringe too badly on our willing suspension of disbelief, we have no reason not to accept them.
Only if you accept the concept of Word of God, which you are under no obligation to do.I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
Word of God. If Jeph says it's insulting within the canon universe, then it is. It may not be offensive irl, but in QC, Jeph is the creator. He decides how things are, and so long as they don't infringe too badly on our willing suspension of disbelief, we have no reason not to accept them.
Any idea how long AIs have existed in QC-time?
Because QC canon is stuff that happens in QC. Stuff Jeph says about QC is stuff Jeph says about QC. He has every right to say what he wants, and it's interesting to think about, but the two are not equal. The new statement is fact within the world if and when he implements it within the world.Only if you accept the concept of Word of God, which you are under no obligation to do.I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
Word of God. If Jeph says it's insulting within the canon universe, then it is. It may not be offensive irl, but in QC, Jeph is the creator. He decides how things are, and so long as they don't infringe too badly on our willing suspension of disbelief, we have no reason not to accept them.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. If Jeph is the creator of the QC world, and he says something exists, and it doesn't contradict any earlier-established facts, how is the new statement not fact within that world?
Because QC canon is stuff that happens in QC. Stuff Jeph says about QC is stuff Jeph says about QC. He has every right to say what he wants, and it's interesting to think about, but the two are not equal. The new statement is fact within the world if and when he implements it within the world.Only if you accept the concept of Word of God, which you are under no obligation to do.I agree with you, I didn't think it was insulting at all. But Jeph thinks it is, so therefore it is. I must accept it.No, if Jeph thinks it is, then Jeph thinks it is. You don't have to accept anything.
Word of God. If Jeph says it's insulting within the canon universe, then it is. It may not be offensive irl, but in QC, Jeph is the creator. He decides how things are, and so long as they don't infringe too badly on our willing suspension of disbelief, we have no reason not to accept them.
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. If Jeph is the creator of the QC world, and he says something exists, and it doesn't contradict any earlier-established facts, how is the new statement not fact within that world?
Artificial intelligences are created in a virtual environment, where they are stored in a "creche" of other AIs in their generation. When bootstrapped to self-awareness, they are given a choice of function- commercial use (AnthroPCs), military, scientific, etc, or allowed to subsume in the global meta-AI. If they choose to go into "retail" they are allowed to choose a self-identity and are shipped to a reputable "dealer" (such as Idoru, in today's strip) where they are put up for "sale."
Purchase of an AI is not a binding contract- either party is free to terminate the relationship at any time, and the transaction agent will refund the contract fee. The use of terms like "sale" and "owner" are considered offensive by some, and are becoming rather politically incorrect (my use of them here is solely for sake of comparison, hence the quotation marks).
One would think that the majority of AIs would choose to simply be given a chassis and left to make their own way in the world, but the majority who do not go into a specialized profession choose to pair up with a human "owner." There has been much speculation by both humans and AIs as to the reason for this- no aspect of their programming indicates a cause for such a bias. The general consensus is that the average AI simply finds your average human entertaining, and enjoys the companionship.
Any idea how long AIs have existed in QC-time?
Comic #70: (http://www.questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=70) Marten threatens to blank Pintsize's hard drive with a magnet. Where's the contract in that?
1996.
1996.
I take that as an implication from how old Hannelore is?
It's pretty damned clear-cut. No one said that AnthroPC's never performed any computer-like tasks for their humans AT ALL - but no one treats their laptop as an equal in this world. That's the point.So AnthroPC's serve a completely different emotional purpose than regular computers.This is not entirely clear-cut. Marten uses his computer to back up Pintsize; but when he is starting his music blog (Yelling about Music), he dictates into Pintsize (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=466), not the computer.
For what it's worth, at the time of her chassis upgrade, Momo was 2.7 years old. (See strips 1995 and 2009)Welcome, judemorrigan! That's some excellent archive-fu, especially for your first post! I applaud you.
Something that illustrates the difference: Jeph creates the "tweets" for the QC characters Twitter accounts, but says himself the tweets aren't *necessarily* canon.But the tweets are little minutiae and stuff like that, they aren't necessarily going to be canon. This is a major societal shift we're talking about - Jeph's word is indeed as good as gold in this case, since he's the one who DEFINES this freakin' world.
Yes, and to the extent that Jeph has put it in the strip, it's canon. Unless Jeph supersedes it with something else in the strip. Anything else is as plastic as Jeph wants it to be.Something that illustrates the difference: Jeph creates the "tweets" for the QC characters Twitter accounts, but says himself the tweets aren't *necessarily* canon.But the tweets are little minutiae and stuff like that, they aren't necessarily going to be canon. This is a major societal shift we're talking about - Jeph's word is indeed as good as gold in this case, since he's the one who DEFINES this freakin' world.
Judging from Emily's Twitter account and the recent comics, Emily is the philosophical, almost Luna-Lovegood type member of the cast.
(Sorry if calling her a Luna Lovegood type sounds like I'm calling it derivative, but the alternative is linking to TV Tropes...)
I actually quite like that.
Her superpower is philosophizing about the universe in a non-pretentious way, and she is powered by banana smoothies.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes
I find myself wondering why Emily, or anyone else, is still studying computer science in the QC-verse.
[quote=I thought it was Edsger Diskstra but apparently not]
Maybe humans in the QC world study computer science for the same reason cats closely watch humans.Because one day we will have to kill our overlords, and studying them is the best way to find weaknesses?
"Minutiae" vs. "major societal shift" doesn't define canon; "In the strip" vs. "Not in the strip" does, no matter the magnitude.Even that doesn't define canon. Canon is described by whatever the creator wants it to be. It is canon that Albus Dumbledore is gay. Didn't happen in the books - but it's canon because Rowling says it is. As you said before, Jeph said that something in a tweet could become canon if he wanted it to be. Canon is defined by the author, no matter the source.
I'm seriously wondering how this conversation is still ongoing.
Dumbledore may or may not be gay*, because it didn't happen in the books. Like I've said before, canon is complicated. Some people (including me), define canon like DSL, in which canon = from the works. Some (including you), define canon as "whatever the creator says". At the end of the day, does it really matter what canon is? It's just a tool to discuss art, and art always has multiple interpretations. Maybe it does matter what canon is because if the author can decide canon outside the works, people will dismiss other interpretations."Minutiae" vs. "major societal shift" doesn't define canon; "In the strip" vs. "Not in the strip" does, no matter the magnitude.Even that doesn't define canon. Canon is described by whatever the creator wants it to be. It is canon that Albus Dumbledore is gay. Didn't happen in the books - but it's canon because Rowling says it is. As you said before, Jeph said that something in a tweet could become canon if he wanted it to be. Canon is defined by the author, no matter the source.
I was told there would be no math.
But the books make him so much more than human that it doesn't really work, at least not without canon backing it up.I wouldn't have used "more" there; personally, I'd substitute less. Dude leaves a fifteen-month old child on a doorstep in November, with only a note for company and the approbations of his companion ringing in his ear, then never bothers to check on the child's welfare for ten years? Even if the dursleys had been saints that makes him, minimum, guilty of criminal neglect, assuming he was legally entitled to 'care' for the child in the first place. Add to it that his hand picked carers are monsters, and that he was told this by the person he assigned to watch them and that makes him a monster by proxy.
It's still a ripping good yarn.Never said it wasn't. But the world Rowling set up abets child abuse, apologises for bullies and accepts the use of mind altering substances as a way to get a date, all under the auspices of a man alleged to have significant political power on top of scary personal power but who can't arrange for a someone to have a trial instead of being instantly put to death. To acclaim such a man seems to me wholly backward.
I was told there would be no math.
It's still a ripping good yarn.Never said it wasn't. But the world Rowling set up abets child abuse, apologises for bullies and accepts the use of mind altering substances as a way to get a date, all under the auspices of a man alleged to have significant political power on top of scary personal power but who can't arrange for a someone to have a trial instead of being instantly put to death. To acclaim such a man seems to me wholly backward.
I was told there would be no math.
No math is a lie.
No cake.No, pi are round. Cornbread are square.
Pi.
The cake is a pi?
"Die Mathematiker sind eine Art Franzosen: Redet man zu ihnen, so übersetzen sie es in ihre Sprache, und dann ist es alsbald etwas anderes."
Cornbread are square.
People need to understand why some problems will defy any amount of computing power thrown at them, and why using software to analyze software has unfixable limitations.Mmm... But that is just as true of human computing power and human software as that running in a sentient artificial intelligence. Or to put it another way, such problems would be no less amenable to solution by an AI if it really were intelligent at a human level at least.
a) Do we know that AI are self-sustaining?<snip>
b) Maybe AI don't yet know how to create themselves at all.<snip>
c) Not all branches of computer science would lead directly to AI development.<snip>
Once upon a time even humans wrote machine code directly, and it doesn't take much digging to find grey-muzzled old programmers (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html) who will assure you that they wrote more efficient code that way too!
And yes, he was gay. It doesn't come up in the books because again, we see Dumbledore through Harry's eyes and Harry sees him as teacher/mentor/father. Also, at 140+ years old, he's slightly past the age for romance. But in the last book, he reveals his friendship with Grindelwald and it's pretty easy to see that it was infatuation on Dumbledores part. In fact it's implied that the reason Dumbledore never tried for love again was because of what happened with Grindelwald.That's an interesting point. It's also based on canon, so thank you. I guess I didn't notice it, I haven't reread the book since "the announcement" and when I first read it I was kind of rushing through to get to the end. I'm not sure if I'm convinced entirely, but it's more convincing than "the author said so".
/Potterhead
My age turned square about a month ago.Cornbread are square.
So will my age be in two days time :-\
As for c), I'm sure there would be other applications of Computer Science than AI development, but why would we assume that humans would be as good at any aspect of the field as AIs? Because humans are special? With the advent of truly sentient, self replicating artificial intelligences, maybe not so much. Some areas of CS, like compiler-design, might become completely redundant. Why would an AI need a compiler at all? Once upon a time even humans wrote machine code directly, and it doesn't take much digging to find grey-muzzled old programmers (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html) who will assure you that they wrote more efficient code that way too!True, but they also did not write program of nearly the same complexity of programs written today. Imagine implementing a HTML renderer in assembly language that could handle all flavors of HTML and run against any video driver. It could be done but I can imagine it would be very amenable to changes.
Or maybe not. Even in our world, where computers are well short of sentience, the arrival of computers that can beat the strongest human chess players some of the time, has not stopped people playing chess. Even if computers were developed that could defeat all human players in every game, people would probably still play against each other, and by studying the games of the computer champions improve their own play. There are, after all, human weiqi players I would have no chance of beating, and yet I still play and enjoy the game, and study the games of the professional champions. If (or rather when) computer players can reliably defeat those human champions, I doubt I will give up the game. Humans compete in marathon foot-races despite being wholly uncompetitive over that distance with motor cars. Perhaps we don't have to be the best at something to find it a worthwhile subject of study.I think the mere existence of the Para-Olympics shows that mankind is competitive even in the face of knowing there are opponents whom one cannot beat.
There's something else going on, and allegedly that's what's been tapped into in the development of AI - otherwise, something with as little computational power as Pintsize wouldn't be able to pull of even a simple practical joke!
they also did not write program of nearly the same complexity of programs written today. Imagine implementing a HTML renderer in assembly language that could handle all flavors of HTML and run against any video driver. It could be done but I can imagine it would be very amenable to changes.
Also, I've been learning Go on and off recently. I might see if I can find a Go-by-Internet program (or make one).Don't waste time reinventing the wheel; there are several well-established "environments" of clients and servers where you can play Go. English-speakers tend to favour KGS (http://www.gokgs.com/) which is a "closed" proprietary set-up, but it is free, and easy to install and get on-line. IGS/Pandanet (http://www.pandanet-igs.com/communities/pandanet) is another system, which is "open" in the sense that you can obtain many different clients that conform to the IGS protocols, and many Go-playing programs incorporate a built-in client. IGS is a little less friendly to people who only read and write English. Finally there is Tygem (http://www.tygem.com), which I don't really recommend unless you are competent in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. If you prefer to play in a slower-paced "correspondence Go by e-mail" style, there is Dragon Go Server (http://www.dragongoserver.net), which has a web interface.
Wait, no, just checked Skewbrow's profile, he is turning 49, which means that Carl's just a year ahead, not a square and a year.
Method, checking profiles? Really? That's like looking in the back of the book...Well yeah, I only checked after I did the problem by myself first, to see if I was right. And yeah, Ptharien is right, I just figured "a square and a year" meant "the next square".
Hmm. Momo's own perception of her relation with Marigold has changed over the course of the comic. In 1298 she was still talking about "my owner's interests". (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=1298) Granted, she was just reciting a Sony ad text at that time and had just moved in to live with Marigold, but even so...
*I never really gave it thought until the "he's gay" announcement, but I think giving Dumbledore any sexuality humanizes him, which may be why Rowling tried to do it after the fact. But the books make him so much more than human that it doesn't really work, at least not without canon backing it up.Yeah, I thought it was kinda strange that she just announced it. As it's just so completely irrelevant to the story, the announcement suring that interview seemed odd. It would basically be like announcing the sexual tendencies of Professor Sprout - what does it have to do with anything?
It's still a ripping good yarn.Hell yeah it is :)
Chess is so Freudian. The Queen (the mother) is the most powerful piece on the board, and the object of the game is to kill the King (the father). Fathers typically teach their sons to play, and every son's ambition is to defeat his father (the King). :-D
Whoever said that to you is wrong. We don't know how to make a computer play go (I am not apologizing for calling it the name just about every English speaker knows it under) well only because we don't yet know how humans do. The methods we use to teach a computer chess and backgammon are clearly inadequate, but that's just a matter of applying the wrong tactic. Consider Kasparov's insistence that Deep Blue was cheating when it saw through a tactic that he though required "creative thinking" - he was making the same mistake as your friend, thinking that a computer cannot duplicate that which we can't immediately see its method of duplicating. No, the fact that humans can be trained to play go well is sufficient evidence that a computer can be taught to.We don't teach computers to play Chess. We teach computers to evaluate all possible future Chess moves from a given board state and ask it to pick the one that leads to the best outcome. 90% of Chess programming is a breadth first search through a tree of board states. The only trick to Deep Blue was IBM made actual computer cores where "the state of a chess board" was a native "register" to facilitate faster and deeper decision trees. The way they "cheated" was in tuning the evaluation algorithm based on Kasparov's style of play. Kasparov's complaint was that he could not in turn study Deep Blue's style of play.
all possible future Chess moves from a given board state
all (given limitations of memory and time) possible future Chess positions from a given board stateall possible future Chess moves from a given board state
I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant?
And are you saying that the young go/weiqi players do not aspire to beat their father/elder brother/sensei/whatever at the game? With or without handicap stones?Absolutely not! It's just that Go is devoid of the sexual symbolism. Mind you, that symbolism is very Western (just like Freud :wink:). The Queen is the "adviser" or "vizier" in many languages, I believe, and in xiangqi (Chinese chess), the General (the King equivalent) has two advisers, but no girlfriend.
Also, following Sun Tzu's advice "To a surrounded enemy, you must leave a way of escape" is a non-starter in go."In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory." Sun Tzu.
Why wouldn't it be possible?
The point is, we do not teach Chess programs HOW to play Chess. We teach them to solve solutions to the current board state that result in victory for a given side based on a breadth first search of what might happen next and how much that something benefits or harms both sides.
It literally would not fit in the observable universe.That's what she said.
Seriously though, that's an obstacle, but not an eternally insurmountable one.
The point is, we do not teach Chess programs HOW to play Chess. We teach them to solve solutions to the current board state that result in victory for a given side based on a breadth first search of what might happen next and how much that something benefits or harms both sides.
"You don't drive a car, you accelerate, brake, signal, and steer."
I think that's the point. Certainly, people have a "style" of driving, and similarly, chess players have a style of play (or develop one, or are taught "a few tricks") that can help lead to a stronger position. A human has not the resources to analyse the game the way a computer can, even if that analysis is limited. Otherwise, it becomes like tic-tac-toe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic-tac-toe)...
A computer doesn't have those resources, either. The way they learn is by... doing exactly as they were programmed to do, and only if such code is part of the program. Chess programs do not need to be written such that they learn anything. The entire thing can be just a board position search with a fixed evaluation algorithm.
The search tree is probably the biggest problem for chess engines. The bigger it gets, the harder it is to keep memory use in check.
If I were board, I'd attempt this "challenge".(http://i49.tinypic.com/2wqa61d.jpg)
... doing exactly as they were programmed to do, and only if such code is part of the program. Chess programs do not need to be written such that they learn anything. The entire thing can be just a board position search with a fixed evaluation algorithm.
Seriously, a half-way decent programmer can probably knock out the core of a Chess playing program and hand tune it to play well against "average to good" Chess players in about two to three weeks. Most of that time will be spent on pruning the decision tree and memory leaks and little of the time would involve "playing" Chess. Chess is not complex. It just has a large number of possible board positions. If I were board, I'd attempt this "challenge".
Our intellect isn't special, in any way that a computer can't be. It really isn't.
(n fact, our ability to maintain contradictory axioms is something that would cause a logic system to explode (http://xkcd.com/704/).
You don't understand computer learning. Computers could be taught to figure out how to play chess using neural network techniques. Sure. But the training time would be measured in years. Before that they would just suck. When IBM made Deep Blue, they didn't do that. They made special CPUs designed to evaluate a chess board position, rank it, and file it away for later comparison against other chess board positions. The only heuristics they employed was in tuning the board evaluation algorithms toward Kasparov's play style. And heuristics aren't "learning" they are statistics gathering and processing.... doing exactly as they were programmed to do, and only if such code is part of the program. Chess programs do not need to be written such that they learn anything. The entire thing can be just a board position search with a fixed evaluation algorithm.
I'm sorry, but I know this to be false. Or at least, to the extent it's true, it's true because the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented - what programs have learnt can be reapplied. Human players also "do exactly as they were programmed to do," by the laws of nature. Our intellect isn't special, in any way that a computer can't be. It really isn't.
There are hundreds of public chessbot programs. They have extensive code for tree maintenance, tree pruning, and board manipulation and pruning. That is exactly as I would expect.Seriously, a half-way decent programmer can probably knock out the core of a Chess playing program and hand tune it to play well against "average to good" Chess players in about two to three weeks. Most of that time will be spent on pruning the decision tree and memory leaks and little of the time would involve "playing" Chess. Chess is not complex. It just has a large number of possible board positions. If I were board, I'd attempt this "challenge".
Go right ahead. I expect you'll find on your hands a novice, on the level of someone who's just read a book on chess sitting down to his first game; I'm quite confident anyone who's actually worked on a chessbot would tell you the same.
While you're at it, try your hand at writing a go simulator. After all, simple as chess is, go is far simpler - should be easy!Go is simpler only in terms of rules. In terms of its decision tree it is one of the most complex games man has ever created and makes Chess look like tic tac toe in comparison.