Quote from: Izador on August 13, 2015, 07:55:10 PM

I really don't get why Joe would do this while publicising his linkedin profile....
If he was as smart as the scam he has apparently committed, surely he wouldn't use his real identity?

Jesus wept, are people that hopelessly naive that they will hand over their money so readily?

It's known as the symbol grounding problem, ironically it's a show-stopper for AI and (to anyone with actual experience of working in the domain) is the reason why this project was plainly a fantasy from day 0.

Despite all the sound and fury, ungrounded symbols are the only means of referencing the entity identifying itself as Cedric Quotient.

The string Joe Mozelesky is no more real than the string Cedric Quotent.

This is the way it goes ... Who is behind the Cedric Quotient account? A linkedin account. Who is behind the linkedin account? Rinse and repeat.

Welcome to Limitless Acuity LLC, a boutique technology consulting organization. Learn more about us and our methodology. http://www.limitlessacuity.com <- the domain fails to resolve.

Quote

Remember, remember, just last November
Dont be so keen
Remember Alex Green
Feeling experimental
Remember Ryan Gentle
No need to wail a threnody
If you remember Ryan Kennedy
Remember, remember, be careful my spender

The problem with ungrounded symbols is: the map is not the territory

Quote

The expression "the map is not the territory" first appeared in print in a paper that Alfred Korzybski gave at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New Orleans, Louisiana in 1931

(I strongly urge you to read the (fairly short and quite accessible) wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation)

Steven Harnad formulated the issue as it applies to AI as the symbol grounding problem. The wikipedia entry is a bit of a mess, for a more articulate and comprehensive review, see Taddeo and Floridi's paper Solving the Symbol Grounding Problem: a Critical Review of Fifteen Years of Research. (The date of the paper is 2005, so we better make that Twenty five Years of Research because its a fundamental problem in AI that remains unsolved).

After youve understood the problem, you will also understand the vacuity of claims of AI on the blockchain and why attempts to imbue clones of Bitcoin with autonomy are inevitably doomed to failure because the notion is profoundly misconceived.

One huge giveaway to the vacous nature of the project was the reference to singularity. I call it the bucket of frogs fallacy because in essence the claim is no different from - chuck enough frogs into a large enough bucket and they will combine somehow to form a giant frog. Its the same screamingly obvious fallacy as We have a month to produce a baby, find me nine women.

Intelligence is neither additive nor multiplicative, far from it. At scale, its subtractive; all the earnestly-defended fantasies in this entire thread stand as proof of that.

Different domain, same problem (from gizmodo on Ashley Madison):

Quote

Overall, the picture is grim indeed. Out of 5.5 million female accounts, roughly zero percent had ever shown any kind of activity at all, after the day they were created.

The mens accounts tell a story of lively engagement with the site, with over 20 million men hopefully looking at their inboxes, and over 10 million of them initiating chats. The womens accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.

Sure, some of these inactive accounts were probably created by real, live women (or men pretending to be women) who were curious to see what the site was about. Some probably wanted to find their cheating husbands. Others were no doubt curious journalists like me. But they were still overwhelmingly inactive. They were not created by women wanting to hook up with married men. They were static profiles full of dead data, whose sole purpose was to make men think that millions of women were active on Ashley Madison.

Ashley Madison employees did a pretty decent job making their millions of womens accounts look alive. They left the data in these inactive accounts visible to men, showing nicknames, pictures, sexy comments. But when it came to data that was only visible on to company admins, they got sloppy. The womens personal email addresses and IP addresses showed marked signs of fakery. And as for the womens user activity, the fundamental sign of life online? Ashley Madison employees didnt even bother faking that at all.

But there's no helping some people ...

Quote from: kennyP on August 13, 2015, 09:38:04 PM

Real AI development is going on under SuperNET only

Come little fishes, swim to me. Nom, nom, nom.

Cheers

Graham