Very funny, Ron, throw in computers all the way from Charles Babbage's mechanical versions of the 19th century to the big tube (valve) versions of the mid 20th. You didn't understand any of them.
I just asked the stupid artificially intelligent CoPilot the same question, in English, and it didn't hesitate long to give me the right answer. Along with a snarky comment! Seemingly some overly clever engineer patched the flaws in the system that allowed Hubbard to foul it up, either in the 50s (Univac) or the 40s (Eniac) or simply in his fevered imagination.
Alan Turing surmised that one day a computer could be programmed to respond to simple English questions, indistinguishably from a human behind the keyboard. Like that old techie joke "4 years ago I couldn't even spell Enjuneeir! Now I are one!" Now we have "computers" (or at least networks of servers composed of computers) that can answer English questions, passing the Turing Test. Sort of.
But not really, any idiot can easily spot the flaws in imitated natural language. Just as artificial sugar tastes bitter, there truly is nothing more stupid than artificial intelligence.
The idea of asking computers questions really derives from the old Alley Oop comics, where old Doc Wonmug would type in a question and read the answer on a strip of paper. If you can't conceive of how to program a computer, either by setting gears in certain positions, plugging in patch cords, punching buttons or sitting at a teletype making paper tapes or card decks, you have no idea how to pose a question that the computer can answer. In the 60s time period of the lecture, you would probably program in Fortran or Cobol on a punched card deck. "2 times 2=" is certainly not legal Fortran and would just throw an error, but you could easily do something like I=2 * 2, PRINT I. Not much later they invented Forth, where "2*2?" happily prints out 4 right there in your console.
Yes, Virginia, there are still machines that use Forth! My non-disclosure agreements prevent me from commenting further.
At any rate, Hubbard only displays his ignorance by bragging about it. Classic Hubbard. Later on, he did an entire lecture where he had Ron Clifford typing in questions to a faked computer and reading off answers. Ron's Journal 38 or some such? Today you could actually do it and get "answers" that are just as good as the internet cesspool they used to train the AI. Progress!
We only had to drive about 100 or so miles to totality in 2017. It really was breathtaking. I got awesome photos. What was more awesome was the way nature reacted. The cows in a nearby field started mooning like they had been caught unawares with nightfall, crickets began to chirp. A total eclipse is really awesome. We will only get 63% this time, anyone who is in a position to view the totality, don’t miss it.
I don't know how the Hubster spanned the difference between braggadocio and straight out lying. But somehow he combined the two into a combination of the two. Everything in the Hubsterverse is about him and everyone else has to 'agree' to be in his universe. His rules rule, and everyone else had better notice that. Logic and observation be damned, obey and worship Lron!
There is Hubbard logic which is often illogical. If we are true Scientologists we MUST believe everything he says makes sense. Therefore if we don’t understand it’s our fault.
Yes, that’s Catherine Bell and I just realized on the left of Trish Duggan is?
I sent Tony the answer.
Hubbard had hundreds of lectures where he spouted off complete BS and proved how little he was able to predict the future. He did not see the internet coming, nor AI. His hubris was gigantic yet if you are a believer you hang on Hubbard’s every word. And the brainwashing and confusion for the believers gets deeper.
Very funny, Ron, throw in computers all the way from Charles Babbage's mechanical versions of the 19th century to the big tube (valve) versions of the mid 20th. You didn't understand any of them.
I just asked the stupid artificially intelligent CoPilot the same question, in English, and it didn't hesitate long to give me the right answer. Along with a snarky comment! Seemingly some overly clever engineer patched the flaws in the system that allowed Hubbard to foul it up, either in the 50s (Univac) or the 40s (Eniac) or simply in his fevered imagination.
Alan Turing surmised that one day a computer could be programmed to respond to simple English questions, indistinguishably from a human behind the keyboard. Like that old techie joke "4 years ago I couldn't even spell Enjuneeir! Now I are one!" Now we have "computers" (or at least networks of servers composed of computers) that can answer English questions, passing the Turing Test. Sort of.
But not really, any idiot can easily spot the flaws in imitated natural language. Just as artificial sugar tastes bitter, there truly is nothing more stupid than artificial intelligence.
The idea of asking computers questions really derives from the old Alley Oop comics, where old Doc Wonmug would type in a question and read the answer on a strip of paper. If you can't conceive of how to program a computer, either by setting gears in certain positions, plugging in patch cords, punching buttons or sitting at a teletype making paper tapes or card decks, you have no idea how to pose a question that the computer can answer. In the 60s time period of the lecture, you would probably program in Fortran or Cobol on a punched card deck. "2 times 2=" is certainly not legal Fortran and would just throw an error, but you could easily do something like I=2 * 2, PRINT I. Not much later they invented Forth, where "2*2?" happily prints out 4 right there in your console.
Yes, Virginia, there are still machines that use Forth! My non-disclosure agreements prevent me from commenting further.
At any rate, Hubbard only displays his ignorance by bragging about it. Classic Hubbard. Later on, he did an entire lecture where he had Ron Clifford typing in questions to a faked computer and reading off answers. Ron's Journal 38 or some such? Today you could actually do it and get "answers" that are just as good as the internet cesspool they used to train the AI. Progress!
We only had to drive about 100 or so miles to totality in 2017. It really was breathtaking. I got awesome photos. What was more awesome was the way nature reacted. The cows in a nearby field started mooning like they had been caught unawares with nightfall, crickets began to chirp. A total eclipse is really awesome. We will only get 63% this time, anyone who is in a position to view the totality, don’t miss it.
I don't know how the Hubster spanned the difference between braggadocio and straight out lying. But somehow he combined the two into a combination of the two. Everything in the Hubsterverse is about him and everyone else has to 'agree' to be in his universe. His rules rule, and everyone else had better notice that. Logic and observation be damned, obey and worship Lron!
There is Hubbard logic which is often illogical. If we are true Scientologists we MUST believe everything he says makes sense. Therefore if we don’t understand it’s our fault.
Yes, that’s Catherine Bell and I just realized on the left of Trish Duggan is?
I sent Tony the answer.
Hubbard had hundreds of lectures where he spouted off complete BS and proved how little he was able to predict the future. He did not see the internet coming, nor AI. His hubris was gigantic yet if you are a believer you hang on Hubbard’s every word. And the brainwashing and confusion for the believers gets deeper.
My own photo from Corvallis, Oregon on that day is posted today on my facebook
Siri is my ‘source’, and she puts Lron to shame.