Popcorn Sutton

The websites I am working with are extremely secure and they don't change the url for any search. On top of that, when I check the host it shows that the website that we use on the front end is actually an alias. So when I go to the real url, that url doesn't change either. I just tried to host the server again and it's failing at the moment. The point is that I can't use the for loop without actually using the webpage, but that's no problem. I went to a conference yesterday and everyone seems to be pretty comfortable with hacking... they didn't mention it often but it was kind of an unspoken thing. Sooooo I'm probably going to be getting a little deeper into hacking. I'm open to using actualy web crawlers, but only if they're cost effective.

Here is the minor fix that I made- def FunTime(): while 1: m = 0 while 2: poi = raw_input('>') try: npoi.append(poi) if len(npoi) == 3: npoi = npoi[1:] except: npoi = [] npoi.append(poi) m += 1 if poi not in time: time[poi] = [''] location = time[poi]; location.append(m) time[poi] = location emerge = time[poi]; if poi in time: location = time[poi]; location.append(poi) location.append(m) emerge = time[poi]; try: local = emerge.index(m-1) except: pass try: if type(emerge[local-1]) is str: print emerge[local-1] location.append(emerge[local-1]) try: location.append(npoi[1]) except: pass location.append(m+1) except: pass time[poi] = location It's probably not that fun but go ahead and play with it for a few minutes lol if anything, the code may help for other purposes

It's supposed to chat with you. Did you type FunTime() ? There is a glitch in it and I'll show you the code that fixes it soon.

It fits. The claim is that technology has made changed us to be more stabilized because of stuff like that. The argument is that after you get trolled so often, you become more mature because of that experience. On a site like this, the experience can be pretty often, but I assume it's like an instrument, you don't just pick it up for the first time and play something beautiful, it takes time to learn how to do it. In this case, you have no option but to let it happen, and when it does happen, it builds on your previous experience. From what I see, it's getting to the extent that we are becoming mental stonewalls. In that particular example, you can infer that it happens to women a lot more than it happens to men. Women are typically exposed to a lot more graphic and disturbing stuff over the internet. I've seen it myself with my friend Jamie and also with my ex girlfriend who NEVER wanted to use facebook. Sure enough, one day she opened her facebook and got a million messages all at once. I've also experienced it in person. I had to deal with security one time because of a guy that none of the girls wanted around, but he just stayed there. It was pretty obvious that no one wanted him there, but he wasn't going to leave us alone. I got him kicked out, and there's been plenty of other times where the same thing happened but I wasn't there. They don't know that it's ok to talk to security about it and get it taken care of. Do you see how it relates? Technology is having a significant impact on our mentality. One time, me and my lady friends went out and they met a nice guy (through me meeting one of their friends). Jackie (my other friend) liked him, and so at the end of the night she gave him her number (there's technology right there). He ended up blowing up her phone with message after message every day. She got annoyed with him very quick and so she stopped responding. That's when he became abusive and started to beat her up and make her feel guilty over the phone. I told her that she should block him, and she eventually did, but now she has the paranoia that we will see him again in person. I typically tell people that they shouldn't ever expect to only meet someone once, because when you do, that's when you make yourself anxious.

I see what you're saying now and, yes, I have witnessed it. I don't know if you or the other moderators remember, but there was a post in one of the threads that I started by a male who overtly stated that women were inferior, and he said that it was especially obvious when it came to science. I don't believe that. I know of two female scientists whose work I enjoy seeing, hearing, and reading. Those two are Patricia Churchland (her book Neurophilosophy was a great book, it took me a while to read it through because of how big it was, but it was well put together), and Michelle Thalmer (who appears on the Science channel pretty often when it comes to talking about the cosmos). There is definitely a bias there, even now.

And the behavior of judges. What I'm getting at is not the docket (although it's probably a good idea to get the docket), I'm trying to get EVERY register of actions for EVERY inmate possible.

Two of my best friends are girls. When we first started talking, they made me aware that they both wanted to delete their facebooks. I didn't know why at first. I was like WHY would you want to delete facebook. Jamie, one of those girls, decided to open up facebook in front of me. I heard beep after beep instantly when she logged on. It was a bunch of dudes messaging her. One was asking for nude pics. They say that they get pictures of peoples penises constantly, and that's why they want to delete their facebook. It's ridiculous, seriously.

The geniuses I was thinking of in comparison was Alan Watts and Ray Kurzweil (I've been watching and listening to a lot of Ray Kurzweil lately). When I was introduced to Alan Watts, it was by an 18 year old schizo. He was extremely excited to have me listen to Alan Watts. It seriously blew my mind, not because it was genius, but because it had nothing to do with science. The talk he had was about him being god, and, instead of lecturing, he told people to ask him questions as if he was god. It literally killed me. I told the guy who wanted to show me the video that I couldn't listen to it anymore. I didn't want to have that talk enter my ears. I didn't want to make room for those concepts.

I think that it's a different type of culture though. It's like anyone who has participated in online discussions, especially in a scientific context, are mentally hardened to the point of being very respectable people with completely unbiased and emotion free opinions. From what I see, the culture that you speak of is entirely virtual, but it has real world impact.

I think that a lot of us are familiar with social interactions over the internet by now, but, by looking at the attitude of people who do not participate in anonymous interaction, it seems that we have become a lot more mature, and maybe it has gotten to the point of making us stone walls, like a mental Stonewall Jackson. It's pretty obvious to see this type of maturation of mentality by looking at video lectures given by our genius predecessors in comparison to our current geniuses (Ray Kurzweil, Lawrence Krauss, Stuart Hamerhoff, Michio Kaku, Patricia Churchland, Bill Nye, Noam Chomsky, Morgan Freeman, etc.). It's like we have the capacity to completely ignore emotions with every new internet troll that comes around. Are we being conditioned to become a race of mental Stonewalls? Would we be lucky to become one? Is it a good thing? I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say. Cheers!

Yup. Just like that. I'll look into it

Hey all, I didn't want to hijack the news thread so I decided to make a new one. I worked on data integration today and I thought that making a chatbot would suffice for the moment because I don't have the infrastructure available to me yet to start scraping more data. I thought you guys might like to see this, it's probably very close to the cleverbot algorithm. It's going to need a lot of data to get to something useful though, so I threw in some machine learning. I'm giving it to you guys where time is an empty dictionary, so you're going to want to talk to it for a little while to get it to respond, and on top of talking to it for a little while, it's going to be best if you restart the algorithm a few times because it is dispositionally and context sensitive. It won't have much to say the first few times around, but it will learn and it does work. It's not where I want it to be yet, but I could probably have a better model by the end of the day. Anyways, here ya go have fun. time = {} def FunTime(): while 1: m = 0 while 2: poi = raw_input('>') try: npoi.append(poi) if len(npoi) == 3: npoi = npoi[1:] except: npoi = [] npoi.append(poi) m += 1 if poi not in time: time[poi] = [''] location = time[poi]; location.append(m) time[poi] = location emerge = time[poi]; if poi in time: location = time[poi]; location.append(poi) location.append(m) emerge = time[poi]; try: local = emerge.index(m-1) except: pass try: print emerge[local-1] location.append(emerge[local-1]) try: location.append(npoi[1]) except: pass location.append(m+1) except: pass time[poi] = location #Now just type FunTime() and it will start working for ya. Ctrl-C will end the process #Written in Python 2.7.6 64-bit

I am seeking website info, but I'm trying to see if there is a more efficient method. Hacking seems to be the most efficient because that way you can just copy and paste all the information you need. At this point, my program is not hacking, it's just going through every possible search and gathering every result (using language processing, machine learning, and operation synthesis). Is there an easier way that you know of where I can get every search result more efficiently than by searching every possible query? (When I say every possible query, I mean every possible minimal query)

I don't know exactly how they do the turing test or how many judges are actually involved. I wasn't saying that very long and nested databases with if/then routines will be sufficient. I'm saying, and I've been somewhat working on this lately, data integration should be modeled on physics and psychology for the most part. There's going to need to be statistics as well, and I assume that it's probably going to need the approximate location of certain utterances. What I envision is a dictionary where every entry and every definition is another dictionary (although the entries could be a list instead). The storage is going to be absolutely ridiculous though... at least until it maxes out its knowledge to the point of where the next occurrence in an utterance is below the threshold (and this will save A LOT of storage). I haven't really focused on classification. That would increase the amount of storage needed by itself. Watson was the first data driven program to hit the market, every predecessor was theory based and it was pretty clear that it was going to take decades to get it to the point of actually being able to compete in a game like Jeapordy. I don't see a need for the labels to be honest. As Nick Enfield said, "language is entirely grounded in a constellation of cognitive capacities where each taken separately has other functions as well". Ray Kurzweil says that we have approximately 300 million modules in our biological brain, and he follows that statement up by saying that we have actually counted this. I don't think that statistics will do it alone (at this point), but, with enough sensors, there is a chance that statistics will be able to do it on its own, but that doesn't mean that it won't need structure (obviously). Stuart Hammerhoff says that it needs to be organized correctly, and I agree as I have made that statement plenty of times before, but he says that this is an excuse to push the bar back a few decades, which I don't think is the case. The strange thing about a list in Python is that it doens't matter how large it is, it still seems to know instantaneously whether or not a particular point of interest is in the list. I call that list "knowledge", and I think that a lot of other people would agree with that. I don't fully understand why you would think that "Factual information, knowledge, and worldly experience [is not] sufficient."

Unity, the program needs knowledge in order to respond at all. If it didn't have that preprogrammed information, it wouldn't be responding at all. I don't think the Turing test is good for an actual analysis of AI. I could easily spin up a few programs that perform exactly the way that these chat bots do. Honestly I don't know why I don't just spend some time on it, I could probably write one in a couple hours. I decided a while ago that I wasn't going to participate in the test because what I'd be making would not be helpful in any way. I honestly thought that it would be a waste of time. There is a reward for doing it, which is probably what compells these people to submit their bots, but IMHO I don't think that ANY program that passes that test will be useful beyond philosophical inquiry, and once the program is at that point, it's going to need to be revised to incorporate other aspects of AI. If they make the program theory driven, then it's always going to look foolish and it's going to take a very long time to get it to where it's "obviously human". In this case, the programmers used trickery which is not worthy of respect, but on top of it, it was (from what I see in the post by CharonY) obviously theory driven. If it was able to process context then it wouldn't avoid/ignore the judges input. If it did process context, (as it may seem when it said "oh I forgot to ask where you're from"), then it was following a rule based system and only a rule based system. Here's an example of what I think is going on behind the scenes- conversation = input + output #this is a string being concatenated if "Where are you from?" not in conversation: print "Oh, I forgot to ask where you're from..." The problem that I see is that there's no use of a dictionary (and I suspect that a good one is going to need two at least [maybe at most]), which is going to be necessary for any program to have a decent passing grade, and as a lot of us know, 33% is not a typical passing grade. To the author of the program, sorry buddy but it's not good enough. The program will need to be data driven.

I've been programming and interpreting with Python, but I do use perl modules pretty often now that I'm using Linux. I'm not sure what you're getting at with that method though

Thanks Cap'n. That's really all I needed to hear.