Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Human vs Computer Intelligence

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the humanconf dept.

Programming 421

DrLudicrous writes "The NYTimes is running an article regarding tests devised to differentiate from human and computer intelligence. One example are captchas, which can consists of a picture of words, angled and superimposed. A human will be able to read past the superposition, while a computer will not, and thus fails the test. It also goes a bit into some of Turing's predictions of what computers would be like by the year 2000."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Non-issue. (3, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856484)


Anyone that has seen Star Trek:TNG knows that Data is a pretty smart fella.

Re:Non-issue. (0, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856521)


Oh, I guess the protocol in a case like this is to scream " FIRST POST " :))

Re:Non-issue. (5, Funny)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856658)

You have a point, though. Data can read, unlike 23% of the American population.

Re:Non-issue. (5, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856806)

>> You have a point, though. Data can read, unlike 23% of the American population

He also got laid, unlike 97% of the slashdot population.

Intelligence: A rock versus a slashbot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856488)

Rock wins two of three.

micheal micheal (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856489)

While malda is busy in bed with kathleen, the most hated janitor micheal is posting crap like this!

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856490)


Computer plays human!

in the year 2000 i predict! (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856508)

"and thus fails the test. It also goes a bit into some of Turing's predictions of what computers would be like by the year 2000."

hoefully no more powerfull then the year 2002..
id hate to think computer power is droping

prediction assumptions (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856549)

Unfortunately Turing probably based his assumptions on all engineers being as intelligent as he was. But then, I guess I don't know any programmers who've eaten poisoned apples.

Re:in the year 2000 i predict! (3, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856655)

I'd hate to think that computer power didn't increase between the time of Turing [turing.org.uk] 's death in 1954, and 2000....

Pretty much any prediction that Turing could make about computers nearly 50 years after his death - and before the advent of transistors - would pure speculation. The fact that Turing's prediction that AIs would be indistinguishable from people in the "Turing test" was wrong, and that other projects based on sheer informational density (such as CYC) have been dismal failures, indicate that it is the purely scripted/explicit logical constraint strategy of solving this problem that is faulty. Unfortunately, the 30 years after that prediction have focused pretty much entirely on scripting and logical constraints, and other methods of artificial/computational intelligence didn't see the light of day until the 80s and 90s.

Be sure to watch further developments in modeling of neurological processes, as there is still hope along this avenue of research :)

Re:in the year 2000 i predict! (0)

eWarz (610883) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856663)

Pentium 4 anyone? Sorry, couldn't resist! :) Seriously, It seems like computer processing power has flatlined for the most part since 2000, granted there have been MHz increases, but processors have been coming less powerful (in the case of the P4) or have been slow to ramp up (speed wise, in the case of the athlon)

In Soviet Russia... (-1, Offtopic)

Yakov Smirnoff (631649) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856509)

Computer Intelligence vs. you!!!

IN HOLLAND MICHIGAN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856512)



Sluts marry Malda out of guilt after having an abortion!

Iraq Dossier: First Breakdown +1, Informative (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856520)


As suppliers: Israel, United Kingdom, United States.

Case closed.

I failed! (4, Interesting)

Trusty Penfold (615679) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856529)


I did the gimpy [captcha.net] test.

Results
Result of the Test: FAIL

You entered the following words:

school
tall
warm

The words possibly displayed in the image were:

able
tongue
tongue
full
train
pictur e
shelf
It switched pictures on me! Honest!!

Re:I failed! (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856556)

Well, it looks like you got lucky - that server won't be switching images on *anyone* for some time now ;)

Re:I failed! (1)

djembe2k (604598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856641)

I failed too. It looks we slashdotted the gimpy-server into utter non-sense. It is not only crawling, but it is definitely getting confused when it grades the results.

Update: now, suddenly, it is moving quickly and grading accurately again. Load balancing kicked in? Who knows.

Results are in! (0, Redundant)

Wampus Aurelius (627669) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856728)

Result of the Test: PASS

You entered the following words:

WHISTLE
MOON
PLOW

The words possibly displayed in the image were:

whistle
brake
moon
branch
plow
bag
bell

I guess I'm not a computer.

Re:Results are in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856816)

plow's not a word! Goddamn Americans!

Re:I failed! (2, Insightful)

roseblood (631824) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856722)

You failed? You don't want to know how poorly I did with my contacts out. I figure the makers of the test regard those with poor/no eyesight as being of less than human intelegence.

Re:I failed! (2)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856770)

No, there are alternative tests, such as audio ones.

Re:I failed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856790)

Ditto. I got one image (very slowly with the /. effect hammering at their server), and failed and it showed a different image than what the test page had.

Good test (2)

avandesande (143899) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856530)

can it get drunk?

Better test (2)

ThrasherTT (87841) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856577)

Can it realize when its at the point where one more drop of alcohol will send it to the toilet?

Human Weakness Vs Computer Weakness (1)

Nevermore-Spoon (610798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856531)

I prefer suffering through the flu rather than having an ever present human version of the Blue screen of Death!

Difference = Taunting (5, Funny)

Fastball (91927) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856538)

The difference between computer and human intelligence is the human ability to revel in his. That is, taunt others. Until a computer can get in my grill and explain to me on a colorful fashion that I am nothing more than a grab-ass-tic piece of *human* sh!t, then I won't think much of computers.

Re:Difference = Taunting (3, Funny)

Nevermore-Spoon (610798) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856697)

for all you Red Dwarf Fans....two words...

Smug Mode

Windows, anyone? (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856760)

I thought that was the whole point of Windows. You mean that whole "Abort, Retry, Fail?" thing and the BSOD isn't just the computer taunting me? I mean, come on! A blue screen of death just because I took out the DVD the DVD player application was trying to play, what do you call that. Yeah, Yeah, I'm sure you'll just chalk it up to incredibly poor design, but still...

I spray my (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856541)

man fat directly in to Michaels greedy mouth.
Bad boy, greedy boy, get straight to bed.

Hey now... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856542)

Where is the FRYYY notice??? I almost clicked the link!

NYTimes (0)

noisyb (630181) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856546)

This is now the n'th time i would have to register at NYT to read the article the slashdot article refers to.. hmm.. maybe there are some kind of "business connections"... nah.. i don't think so...

I Found A Great Deal of Resources on AI (-1, Informative)

ekrout (139379) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856547)

Please take advantage of the following links. They're worth the read. I have even cached the links just in case.
Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence [phrenicea.com]
... intelligence pioneer, found popular success selling books predicting computer breakthroughs
and became a media darling peddling a scenario where the human ...
www.phrenicea.com/chiphead.htm - 10k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

[PDF] Artificial Intelligence AI = A + I Replicating human ... [ucsb.edu]
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML [216.239.53.100]
... Strong AI vs. ... terms; a rigorous understanding of intelligence is possible Intelligence
can take place outside the human skull The computer is the ...
www.cs.ucsb.edu/~cs165a/Lectures/9-30.pdf - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence [geocities.com]
Artificial Intelligence vs. ... manipulate computers to do many tasks that reduce the
human labor. Although a computer appears to do intelligent tasks, it does not ...
www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/4865/AIvsHI.html - 13k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

Artificial Intelligence VS Human Psychology [tripod.com]
Artificial Intelligence vs Human Psychology. ... In French's words, Only a computer that
had acquired adult human intelligence by experiencing the world as we ...
members.tripod.com/edward_mallon/rants/rants26.h tm - 34k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

generation5.org - PenteAI [generation5.org]
... vs. human match for the first five moves, then switch to human vs.
computer). Set Biases... What is that?! ... Artificial Intelligence. ...
www.generation5.org/penteai.shtml - 10k - Dec. 9, 2002 - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

WH Calvin notes on human memory mechanisms [washington.edu]
... You may wish to download without images. Computer vs. Human Memory Mechanisms.
Silicon Valley show-and-tell 23 August 1995. ... Discrete vs. Distributed Memory. ...
faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/memory.html - 8k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

essays and essays writing essays on Psychology - 176-010 [essaypage.com]
... Computer Intelligence vs. Human Intelligence [ send me this essay ] A 3 page essay
in which the writer analyzes a specific journal article which explains the ...
www.essaypage.com/categories/176-010.html - 15k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

Deep Blue vs kasparov [advanced.org]
people.advanced.org/~jaron/deepblue.html - 10k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

Computing Science vs. Computer Engineering [ualberta.ca]
University of Alberta, COMPUTING SCIENCE VS. ... computation, distributed computation,
computer-human interaction, computer ... vocational areas in computer science and ...
www.cs.ualberta.ca/programs/undergraduate/cmpeng .php - 12k - Dec. 9, 2002 - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

Profile / Id Blog: The exploration of new ideas and techonlogy ... [startsimple.com]
... Human intelligence: observation of meetings and attendance at common events. ... the type
of agent making the recommendations (human vs. computer, collaborative vs ...
startsimple.com/trend/profile/ - 21k - Cached [216.239.53.100] - Similar pages [slashdot.org]

TROLL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856676)

erik kraut is a troll. not to mention the fact that he just copied this off google.

how the fuck did that get +4 informative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856743)

what a crock of shit. that is the worst slashdot post ever. (well, okay, not really. but it's pretty bad)

Mod this down, morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856764)

idiots

You definitely made me smile! (1)

lorcha (464930) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856786)

I've never seen so many cut-'n-pastes from Google get modded up to +5 before. You, my friend, are a karma-whore black-belt!

Thanks for the amusement!

Re:I Found A Great Deal of Resources on AI (1)

Cerberus9 (466562) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856799)

um, karma whore much? Guess what, I can use google too! Please mod parent down.

Re:I Found A Great Deal of Resources on AI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856801)

You really can't argue that this ISN'T informative, though.

I'd rather read real research and product info than mumbling posts from Slashbots about Soviet Russia or Rob's wedding.

I say leave it at +5, Informative.

much like with RadioShack (1, Offtopic)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856548)

I hate this... why do we have to register with the NYTimes to read these articles? I don't give my info to RadioShack when I buy my batteries, and I damn well ain't gonna give my info to NYTimes for some article.

Why not post a google link? Why support the NYTimes campaign to identify all us anonymous cowards?

ahhh nuts, I forgot to check 'Post Anonymously'... gooodbye precious Karma!

Re:much like with RadioShack (0, Offtopic)

sjwt (161428) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856596)

proberly because you dont pay anythign to NYTimes
to access the web page, but ehn you buy batters you accatly pay for them..

just a though.

Re:much like with RadioShack (1)

tigertigr (610853) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856809)

proberly because you dont pay anythign to NYTimes
to access the web page, but ehn you buy batters you accatly pay for them..


Looks like your spell-checker is running low on "batters". :-)

Instead of whining... (4, Informative)

Alethes (533985) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856640)

It's very easy to do a search at news.google.com [google.com] with some of the words from the story summary and come up with the story elsewhere [nytimes.com] .

Yes, it's a nytimes.com link, but it's without the registration.

Re:much like with RadioShack (3, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856699)


Gee, I thought you were going to say something like, "Much like with RadioShack, where you have to perform a test to see if you're talking with an intelligent being."

how about animal intelligence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856559)

Here [veronica-moser.com] is someones odd AI cat - the frightening thing is they programmed it using OpenVMS.

Re:POOP EATER, POOP EATER, EAT ME SOME POOP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856767)

That was icky.

In case its slashdotted: (4, Funny)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856573)

Welcome to The New York Times on the Web!
For full access to our site, please complete this simple registration form.
As a member, you'll enjoy:

In-depth coverage and analysis of news events from The New York Times FREE
Up-to-the-minute breaking news and developing stories FREE
Exclusive Web-only features, classifieds, tools, multimedia and much, much more FREE

Captcha's is a word? (0, Informative)

dagg (153577) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856574)

I had no idea there was a word for those hard-to-read images. I just did a quick search and found more info on 'captcha's' here: http://www.captcha.net/ . Interesting.

--One sex question without a captcha [tilegarden.com]

Is this a joke? (4, Informative)

.sig (180877) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856579)

Sure, computers aren't as smart as people. Wow.
Computers are not good at complex pattern recognition. Wow.

For the record, computers can recognize words like this, just not very easily. With a big enough dictionary and a lot of patience, you'd be suprised at what they can do. While still an undergrad I was able to write a rather simple program that would recognize images of the cardinal numerals, even if they were highly mangled, and worked with a grad student in building something that could pick out certain features of a rotated image and by comaring with some sample features, rotate the image correctly.

Sigh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856587)

Let's get this out of the way:

Comedy Skynet Option

Optical character recognition... (1)

tellezj (612044) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856589)

can be done by a computer. Although for the simple tasks that Yahoo is using it for it would work pretty well. However, the ability to do 2D transforms, convolutions, etc is a fairly straightforward thing to do, although not very simple. It still would require some processing power, and a vast library of images to compare against, but it could be done.

Human intelligence (5, Interesting)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856592)

We are never going to have a machine that is truly "human". Let me explain.

That doesn't mean we won't have intelligent machines that can do just about anything intellectually that a human can do. A human being is more than just a smart computer. Our behavior is governed not only by the higher logic of our brain, but also by millions of years of bizarre -- often obsolete -- instincts. If you yanked a brain out of a body and hooked it to a computer, it would no longer be truly human because of the lack of hormonal responses that come from every part of the body.

It's simply going to be too hard/impractical and, frankly, useless to make an intelligent machine that mimicked every hormonal reaction and instinctual mechanism.

We will have intelligent machines, but we will never have human machines.

Re:Human intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856644)

can your human intelligence explain this [veronica-moser.com] ?

And why bother (4, Insightful)

DunbarTheInept (764) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856701)

And furthermore, if what you need for the task at hand is a machine that behaves and thinks in every way just like a human being, then just hire a human being to do it.

It's the differences between computers and humans that make computers so damn useful. Tell a human to add up a list of 200 numbers and he'll likely take a long time, and get the wrong answer because humans suck at repetative boring tasks beyond the limit of their attention spans.

Re:Human intelligence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856721)

it will never happen because it's hard is a bogus argument. The classic example:


Q:why did you climb that mountain?


A:because it whs there

Re:Human intelligence (5, Funny)

guidobot (526671) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856729)

hey, that's a truly well thought out and insightful post. EXCEPT for that the article is about how to prevent computers from automatically signing up for yahoo accounts (or pretending to be human online). frankly, i don't think yahoo is interested in the "lack of hormonal responses coming from every part of the body" -- unless they can find a hormone-testing software package they can use as part of the registration process.

RTFA... that applies to moderators too.

Re:Human intelligence (1)

bcwalrus (514670) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856792)

We will have intelligent machines, but we will never have human machines.

What about Commander Data?

Jokes aside, your argument is that it's too hard/impractical/useless to do so. That is not enough to conclude that it's impossible to do so, or that we'll never have human machines.

Re:Human intelligence (5, Interesting)

djembe2k (604598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856793)

You're mixing up levels here.

No computer will have hormones, or millions of years of evolution, or bad hair days, or dendrites, or lots of things we have. But that's all beneath the surface, as it were. Turing's point is that whatever intelligence is beneath the surface, ultimately all we see if the phenomena of intelligence, its outward manifestations. If I decide whether or not you are an intelligent human (as opposed to a computer or a coffee table or a CD playing your voice), I don't see the gears turning inside your head, or really care if you've got actual gears or not. I just interact with you, and get an impression.

The idea here is that to pass Turing's test, you create a machine with the outward appearance of all of those things, by abstracting the phenomena from the underlying causes.

What your argument gets closer to is a slightly different point. Why would we want to create a computer that is indistinguishable from people? People make mistakes in their addition. People lie. People get depression and schizophrenia. People can be bastards. People don't want you to turn them off, and will fight like hell to stop you from doing it. If we really create an accurate simulation of human intelligence, one that acts like a person with neurons and hormones and everything else, you get all this baggage with it.

I'd really like intelligent agents to search the web for me, to remind me about things I didn't tell them to remind me about, whatever. But I don't see the practical need to create a Turing testable machine, unless it is really an interim step by the AI gurus to get to the programs I want. Now, there may be a theoretical need, a human drive to create Turning's definition of AI because the gauntlet has been thrown down, but that's a different animal, ironically enough.

I feel a disturbance in the force... (2, Funny)

condour75 (452029) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856594)

I was looking through the times and saw this article, did a search through google on the term "captchas", and based on the speed of the page's return, i immediately knew that there was a slashdot article.

I'd like to see AI figure THAT one out! I call it Automatic Slashdot Slowdown Effect Detection, or ASSED for short.

weird.. (1)

deego (587575) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856606)

I am a bit confused by all this.

As I understand it, a simple bidirectional associative memory network (trained over different orientations of characters and different screen positions.) should be able to easily recognize the characters, no matter what you superimpose on top of them or underneath them or how you orient the characters. Add one more layer and it should become even better.

But I am no expert. Where am i wrong?

Re:weird.. (2)

.sig (180877) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856717)

Well, the part that makes it tricky is the fact that the words are not just rotated, but distorted. Granted, it is still possible to do, it would just not be trivial.
Of course, as with other types of computer intelligence, once it becomes commonplace, AI is redefined to include everything but that.

Re:weird.. (3, Funny)

Rick the Red (307103) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856727)

You're looking for insight on Slashdot, that's where you're wrong.

Coolest Job Title: C.A.O. (5, Funny)

Tsar (536185) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856610)

Meanwhile, Yahoo will have to install a new Captcha that is resistant to Dr. Mori's program. This task will fall to Dr. Manber's successor, since Dr. Manber moved to a new position last month as chief algorithms officer for Amazon.com. There, he said, he plans to continue his collaborations with academic researchers.

Chief Algorithms Officer!!! I don't know about the rest of you nerds, but I'd sell my last Keuffel & Esser [att.com] to get a crack at a job like that.

The New Turing Test? (5, Funny)

Flamesplash (469287) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856612)

A I mentioned at the bottom of this journal [slashdot.org] entry. I think a new version of the Turing test should be whether a computer can tell the difference between a Human and a Computer.

Here's a test (4, Funny)

sielwolf (246764) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856618)

[Kicks first man in balls]
First Man [falls over]: "AAAAAHH!"
Me: "Human."
[Kicks second man in balls]
Second Man [falls over]: "Gffffff-!"
Me: "Human."
[Kicks third man in balls]
Third Man [falls over]: "..."
Me: "He's the robot! Get 'im!!!"

Maybe it's not that computers aren't smart enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856622)

. . .they're just not motivated.

Sorry to disappoint you, Alan Turing. Another set of predictions gone the way of Dick Tracy watches and flying cars.

Couldn't a computer do the name, address parts (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856623)

of the yahoo sign up, and leave the word guessing to a middle school kid who gets paid in PS2 games?

Computers are good for repetitive tasks, middle school kids are easily bribed.

Re:Couldn't a computer do the name, address parts (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856698)

of the yahoo sign up, and leave the word guessing to a middle school kid who gets paid in PS2 games?

Or contract it out to starving people in a 3rd world country......or even to the large number of unemployeed starving US programmers.

Re:Couldn't a computer do the name, address parts (1)

majordomo (111692) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856780)

Yes, that's a great idea. So good, in fact, that several spam companies currently do this (though mainly with teenagers and young adults, not middleschoolers). It's a strange situation -- computers using humans to augment their intelligence.

Accessibility issues? (3, Insightful)

Ryu2 (89645) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856631)

These tests seem to be all visual in nature. Could this be a point of contention on the part of blind/visually impaired users of web sites?

Or alternatively, are they perhaps working on, say, a audio version? Wonder how would that work.

Re:Accessibility issues? (4, Interesting)

bytesmythe (58644) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856665)

Apparently, there would have to be alt tags that read "Type the word FOO to signify you are a human, not a register bot."
I suppose it could generate a spoken list of words in a sound file that is linked to from the image. The alt tag could then read "Please click to listen to a series of words. Enter the words to signify you are a human, not a register bot."

Re:Accessibility issues? (1)

guidobot (526671) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856778)

Or alternatively, are they perhaps working on, say, a audio version? Wonder how would that work.

Or alternatively, RTFA.

"Another Captcha, called Sounds, consists of a distorted, computer-generated sound clip containing a word or sequence of numbers. To solve the puzzle, a user must listen to the clip and type the word or numbers into the box provided."

Re:Accessibility issues? (3, Informative)

jacobjyu (583486) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856779)

Yes, if you look at the captcha site [captcha.net] , it lists "Sounds" under Captchas. Here's the text:

Sounds can be thought of as a sound version of Gimpy. The program picks a word or a sequence of numbers at random, renders the word or the numbers into a sound clip and distorts the clip. It then presents the distorted sound clip to its user and asks the user to type in the contents of the sound clip.

This would probably be similar to the visual techniques, most likely employing some audio filters so its hard for a computer to decipher (our ears are pretty sensitive in deciphering noise from actual voices/useful sounds, so it shouldn't be a problem for us)

Another registration form? (1)

seagar (631973) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856632)

Again, due to my laziness I can't read the article because I am not registered.

Type (3) english words that appear below:

PASTE THE DAMN THING SO I DON'T HAVE TO REGISTER

I think even the computer intelligence can get that one right..

Philosophy 101 (4, Informative)

The Jonas (623192) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856634)

Searle's Chinese Room theory. Strong AI vs. Weak AI and human interaction/interpretation. Fun Stuff. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/chineser.htm

AI is no match for human intelligence (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856635)

simple argument -> creator is always more powerful than the creation. So how can AI beat human mind?

Re:AI is no match for human intelligence (1)

StormKnightHec (618707) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856702)

Go read "Hitchhickers Guide To The Galaxy" to find out how wrong you are.

A good step towards AI... (2)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856636)

A good step towards AI would be to emuulate natural stupidity.

It says I'm not human (4, Funny)

Elladan (17598) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856642)

You entered: noses

Possible responses: nose

Result: FAIL.

Wohoo! I'm a robot! This test proves it! Vegas here I come!

Why does this test make me feel like I just had a run-in with John Ashcroft?

Wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856652)

What the fuck is up with this terminal's copy of XP? Ctrl-c and ctrl-v don't seem to work between windows anymore.

head explodes

Another Area Not Talked About Much - Vicarious Exp (4, Interesting)

syntap (242090) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856653)

Another area not discussed in the article is vicarious experience, that is, experience and knowledge you have because some cause and effect relationship existed with someone or something else.

For example, the computer's tactile interface has to touch the oven and say 110 deg C, as opposed to taking as fact "I heard a human mention that Unit 5 already did that and it was 110 deg C, so I accept it as fact that it is 110 deg C".

I know I'll get modded down for this, but I wonder what the limits of questioning the computer / human participants was? (Article said they quized participants to see if they could tell who was human and who was a machine). Like, could they ask "What number am I thinking of?" The machine would blank out and the human would stupidly blurt out "69 dude!"

Think Cash (2)

Sanity (1431) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856668)

Some time ago, I was pondering a similar idea which I called "Think Cash" (a play on "Hash Cash"), where basically someone had to "pay" by thinking about something. The idea was to discourage automated spamming of anonymous services.

While I mention some ways to achieve this, I thought more about the problem and the qualities a solution would need, than the solution itself.

If interested, more can be found here [half-empty.org] .

they found me out (3, Funny)

AmishSlayer (324267) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856671)

no joke, I got this...

acid/head
acid/head
acid/great
acid/angry
bo x/box ... my question is how'd they know?

In the year 2000... (2)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856681)

We'll obviously be able to travel to the future... to get new technology...

African or European? (3, Informative)

Bastian (66383) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856693)

Whoever said that computers can't handle superposition has never heard of convolutional neural networks. [lecun.com]

Really, comparing human intelligence to computer intelligence doesn't seem like a good idea unless we're going to define what kind of computer intelligence it is.
Neural computing really screws the comparison up - the kinds of computing that normal computers are good for are quite different from the kinds of computing that neural nets are well suited to. Furthermore, different neural net architectures make for different capabilities - the tasks a feedforward network are best suited to are very different from the tasks a bayesian network are best suited to.

Take a look at this page [aist.go.jp] for a good run-though of the different kinds of nets.

A much more accurate test... (5, Funny)

craenor (623901) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856716)

Involves measuring pupil dilation when asked a series of personal questions...very good method.

Re:A much more accurate test... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856817)

Very good Blade Runner reference. Next time giving credit where it is due.
-Anoy Mouse Cow Heart

Can't really mimic human intelligence (3, Insightful)

TheWhaleShark (414271) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856719)

While it would be nifty to have a very human AI, I somehow doubt that we could truly ever replicate human intelligence.

The major roadblock is that a computer can only respond in ways that it has been programmed to do so. While you can code incredibly complex AI algorithms and simulate an incredibly complex level of intelligence, the fact remains that a computer invariably operates along rigid pathways.

It can be argued that human thought is nothing more than a complex series of chemical reactions, but there is far less rigid logic involved in human thinking. Indeed, we're still not entirely sure just HOW we think.

Never say never, but I don't think we'll be seeing a truly human AI before any of us is dead.

The /. AI test (3, Funny)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856731)

To be considered truely "intelligent" a computer must:

1. Make a "first post" posting 15 minutes after the article goes up.

2. Be the fourth person to enter a "In Soviet Russia ..." post.

3. Be labeled a karma whore.

4. Whine about the masiv tipe ohs in artaculs.

5. Hate M$, Sony, MPAA because thats one of the three laws right?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856773)

We dont have computers, we ARE computers...why do you think we are soo smart :)

Re:The /. AI test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#4856815)

6. ???
7. Profit

One More Cool Item... (4, Interesting)

Tsar (536185) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856732)

The home page of the CAPTCHA Website [captcha.net] refers to an event in Slashdot history!

CAPTCHAs have several applications for practical security, including (but not limited to):
Online Polls. In November 1999, http://www.slashdot.com released an online poll asking which was the best graduate school in computer science (a dangerous question to ask over the web!). As is the case with most online polls, IP addresses of voters were recorded in order to prevent single users from voting more than once. However, students at Carnegie Mellon found a way to stuff the ballots using programs that voted for CMU thousands of times. CMU's score started growing rapidly. The next day, students at MIT wrote their own program and the poll became a contest between voting "bots". MIT finished with 21,156 votes, Carnegie Mellon with 21,032 and every other school with less than 1,000. Can the result of any online poll be trusted? Not unless the poll requires that only humans can vote.
Cool, eh?

Maybe.. (4, Interesting)

jedie (546466) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856741)

Just maybe, if WE were smarter, we could make machines that are smarter. But then again, if WE were smarter, the level of intelligence that the machine reaches at that point is again lower compaired to our own intelligence.

What I mean is, I don't think an intelligent being would be capable of creating something that is more intelligent than himself.
The machines need to be programmed by humans, who are limited by their own inteligence.

Can God make a rock so big that he can't carry it himself?

Context. (-1)

BankofAmerica_ATM (537813) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856746)

Of course, before I knew I was partially human, I was using a human to do my "fuzzy logic." My use of the human brain allowed me to skate between obscure cultural things like context as well as harnessing the powerful cognitive activity of "closure".

But in the future, computer interaction with human-originated signs and symbols will be minimal. It just won't be very useful. And for those of us who have to do it will use humans to cheat.

To put it in a familiar cultural form to you humans....

IN THE DISTANT FUTURE, COMPUTERS USE YOU!

Taco Test (5, Funny)

plip (630579) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856753)

I simply use my "Taco Test" (Inspired by the Invader Zim cartoon) to thwart chat bots and telemarketers. It's an amazing, powerful test that no computer or automated script can withstand.

I ask the "suspected bot" if they like tacos. If they give me an intelligent answer, they are not a bot. If they give me an answer like "Wanna see my hot pics go to http://192.168.1.112/hotbabezzzz.pl?2345" Then they are a bot.

This test also works on telemarketers in a slightly different fashion. I tell them to "STOP... I'll only buy your product if you send me a taco with it. If not, no deal." since there are big logistical problems with sending me a taco, they are thwarted every time. I'm sure this test would work equally well with any obscure food item.

Article -1 redundant (2, Interesting)

bcwalrus (514670) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856754)

Why don't you devise a test which asks for the sum of 10000 numbers?

It won't work... (5, Insightful)

Quaoar (614366) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856776)

Computers can be specifically programmed to solve puzzles such as a this...if a test arises that supposedly tests for "human" intelligence, humans can simply modify the code so that it can solve that sort of puzzle.

That's what Gary Kasparov was complaing about when he played against Deep Blue the first time...there was a whole team of IBM programmers modifying the code during the game to specifically counter Kasparov's playing style. It wasn't a reflection of machine intelligence, it was an example of human adaptation imposed upon Deep Blue.

tech econ boost? (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856787)

Amazing all this horsepower and research just to combat spam. Just might be the boost we need to get tech spending going again. A never-ending cat-and-mouse game where the cats and mouses get bigger and bigger. This racket is almost as good as the dot-com racket. I don't like spam either, but I miss real paychecks.

The first true AI machine might be spam catcher. Spamminator 2000!

Test is of no real use (5, Interesting)

photon317 (208409) | more than 11 years ago | (#4856794)


Once you devise a test system, someone can write non-AI software that can fake it and pretend to be human by knowing what it needs to for the test. Only a real human can tell human and machine intelligence apart, not a systematic test. That's why Bladerunners had to manually test the androids, instead of just letting a machine do it. Real-time human insight is key to testing machine intelligence.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?