Achim Schneider writes:
jerzy.karczmarczuk@info.unicaen.fr wrote:
... *what do you want to convey?*
Probably that you have to come up with something more confusing and powerful than a neural net and then transfer your consciousness into it to understand yourself and how to program something like you.
Oh my, really? I have to discuss this with my Master, R. Daneel Olivaw. My turn to tell an anecdote. Have you heard about the homework of Theodore Hill (mathematician)? He asked his students to flip a coin 200 times, or use some other serious random generator 200 times, and to report the result sequence. There was an option for lazy people, they could fake the sequence and produce it from the thin air, as intelligent humans could. Then he took the homeworks, scanned each for a couple of seconds, and with a remarkable accuracy selected the cheaters. How? == If you haven't hear the story, check the Web for Benford's Law (discovered by Newcomb 50 years earlier), and all the business which came with it, notably some automated ways of discovering human cheaters who try to fake *natural* data. Instructive, and despite reasonable analysis, still a bit mysterious in its essence. I find it nicer than cheaters who try to convince me that automata may fake human behaviour. Jerzy Karczmarczuk