You should look up the history of the Loebner Prize [1]. There’s a shocking amount of technological development in some chatbots that went toward simulating mistakes and typing patterns to make them seem more human-like.
In some of the later Loebner competitions, when text was transmitted to the human character by character, the bot would even simulate typos followed by backspacing on screen to make it look more realistic.
Hi. I got a notification for this message in my email, so thought I'd reply. My name is Steve Worswick and I won the Loebner Prize a record 5 times with my entry Mitsuku between 2013 to the last contest in 2019. The Loebner Prize didn't take part in 2020 due to Covid restrictions and never started back up again. This along with the death of Hugh Loebner and the resulting end of his sponsorship is why the contest ended. LLMs started to become more popular in 2020 but this was pure coincidence.
Yeah I definitely think LLMs contributed to its demise. To be honest, nobody in academic AI circles took it very seriously, because it kind of devolved into a contest over who could create the most convincing illusion of intelligence.
Participants spent more time polishing up the natural language parsing aspects in conjunction with pre‑programming elaborate backstories for their chatbot's bios among other psychological tricks. In the end, the whole competition was more impressive as a social engineering exercise, since the real goal kinda became: how can I trick people into thinking my chatbot is a human?
But reading through some of the previous competition chatbot transcripts still makes for fascinating reading.
Tbh I do not think the idea is to "police" you, I do believe he means to show that "side load apps" is a corporate speech to say "don't do this, but we allow it". However it's literally just installing software.
Let's apply the "side load" apps logic to Desktop applications, imagine you have to pass for an entire process just to install an app you downloaded?
When you jay walk you take the risk of being hit by a car, causing injuries to you, to the driver, and to other nearby people.
So I don't understand your analogy? Are you suggesting that pedestrians own the streets and should do what they please, as users own their phone and should have the right to do as they please? Or something else?
The term jaywalking was invented (or possibly hijacked) by automotive lobbyists as part of a campaign in 1910s and 1920s to convince the public and the lawmakers that crossing streets outside designated points is bad and should be made illegal. Before then, it was generally considered basic human right to walk anywhere on a street. Whether you agree that jaywalking is bad or not, that's the history of the term.
Grandparent is saying that the term sideloading was invented in a similar fashion to delegitimize a previously completely normal way to use an electronic device.
"Jaywalking" is one of those things that's uniquely American. Most other countries have realized that the risk of being hit by a car is its own deterrent. Or restrict the legal ban on crossing to highways, not all streets.
The UK Highway Code has a RFC-like use of MUST/SHOULD; MUST parts are legally binding, the parts relating to pedestrians are SHOULD.
Jaywalking is only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50m away. (And even then it's only a misdemeanor, not a crime).
That also means that city planners have to balance between people jaywalking, putting crossings everywhere, and how crossings slow down traffic.
And every time a car makes a turn, pedestrians automatically have priority. Which creates an implicit zebra crossing.
The only roads exempt from this are autobahn/motorways. These are by law prohibited from having direct access to anything.
That's IMO also a way for the US to get out of its current situation. Set up a rule like that, with a large distance at the beginning, and slowly reduce it over the next few years, forcing local planners to introduce additional crossings, which also reduces through traffic. The separation of streets vs autobahn also mostly prevents stroads.
> And every time a car makes a turn, pedestrians automatically have priority. Which creates an implicit zebra crossing.
Only for turning traffic, though, i.e. as a pedestrian you still need to yield to traffic coming from the side street. There was some talk of having pedestrians participate more fully in right-of-way-rules, too, i.e. if the side street has a yield/stop sign, traffic would have to yield to crossing pedestrians, too, but so far that idea didn't get anywhere.
I believe most jurisdictions in the US have largely the same framework. At least everywhere I've lived all street corners were implicit pedestrian crossings with a legal requirement (often blatantly ignored) that vehicles yield. Similarly jaywalking is a misdemeanor and only applies within a certain distance of a crossing.
The only situations where it's enforced (from what I've seen so obviously biased) is major highways, city streets with dense traffic and a marked crossing within half a block, and when they want to search someone for contraband. In the latter case it's just an excuse to stop and harass you in the hopes they will manage to generate sufficient articulable suspicion to justify a search.
Yeah, I'm willing to use my brain and look at incoming cars and just walk when it's empty and safe to do so? Where's the problem in that? I have eyes and can judge distance and speed?
It's also the name of my business, chosen for the definition "(of a stream or river) flow with a swirling motion and babbling sound". I have to say, it's really unsettling when a behemoth like Stripe shows interest in a word you use for branding/identity, even in a totally unrelated industry. I doubt it matters, but I'd feel better if they just didn't
oh look there is a llm trained on key loggers to spew slop at your personally predicted error rate; bonus if it identifies to USB as keyboard.
reply