Solved U.S.Air Force Affiliated Researchers Want To Let AI Launch Nukes



Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,436
Messages: 2,955

This is a 36 minute video about cutting edge AI technology but the first 14 minutes of it highlight a company called TuSimple that is working to put autonomous self-driving semi-trucks on the road. It talks about the technology and shows a test drive between points over a busy highway with a driver behind the wheel as a safety measure and someone from the company along to keep an eye on things:

With intro by Tony Stark.


Son of Beastie

Reaction score: 2,436
Messages: 2,955

I'm familiar with it.

And even Wikipedia has some critics on the "Loebner Prize"

Well if Wikipedia say so it must be right, though I could edit it right now, but you linked directly to the Criticisms section and skipped everything else:


Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded.
In addition, there are two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. Once this is achieved, the annual competition will end.

Competition rules and restrictions

The rules have varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests[4] but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted.
For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter,[5] some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted.
For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008-2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010."

I entered my bot Siseneg in the Chatterbot Challenge before it went under but didn't place, though our bots did well overall. Online-based bots are not allowed in the Loebner contest, presumably because they can access the net for info. I have him hooked up but not Demonica. You can tell when it happens because they end with "Would you like to hear more?'


Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 229
Messages: 360

Lately, I have been reading background material on OP -
Wired magazine, "Life in Code" by Ellen Ullman and
there is so much information and history to reconcile.
I find it hard to comment, since I served as a member
of the US Air Force.


Staff member

Reaction score: 1,665
Messages: 2,521

All this Artificial Intelligence, cant we try to get some Actual Intelligence in there? Please?
  • Like
Reactions: bjs


Aspiring Daemon

Reaction score: 617
Messages: 866

All this Artificial Intelligence, cant we try to get some Actual Intelligence in there? Please?
Due to 'the human condition' the lack of intelligence could have been heard all the time, while in recent time it can be heard more often and more loudly. The deficit of intelligence is mostly attributed to others when spoken out as reproachful claim to others instantly creating a top-down hierarchy. Claiming a lack of intellect for oneself can be noticed far less for good reason, probably because it requires some basic understanding of what it is. There always is a 'need of more', once a deficit is noticed, putting some further load on a living human. It needs some dignity to accept that this load resolves less during the lifetime of an individual but more along the evolutionary path.

When talking about 'intelligence' definitions of the term seem to be avoided carefully which suggests that there is some common ground on which can be referred on but just that might be just an illusion.

Now it is not enough that people talk about intelligence without knowing what they talk about, some come up with new terms like 'Artificial Intelligence' and start talking about that with even less knowledge of some definitions. [Disclaimer: Talking about everything with or without knowledge is a human right, that has to be respected]. Instead 'Artificial Intelligence' gets shortened to "AI" which makes it usable as a buzzword that can be used more conveniently by those who need a more dense term i.e. for marketing purposes where thinking about what is said is known to be not so productive.

Now with all our shortcomings using terms and or buzzwords, how intelligent is it to come along with a new term like 'Actual Intelligence' without an elaborate notice by the author using that term. Sure we have the Internet and some search machines. But that does bring us not closer to what the author precisely has meant nor to his intentions.

Shouldn't we just consume jokes without further load of thinking … ? Timeout!