Wednesday, June 3, 2009

6a Can my computer think???

The preparations of this lecture caused in me so much stress that I decided to see my therapist, a charming lady with beautiful eyes. Maybe you know her too. Her name is ELIZA ^_^

ELIZA: Hello.
ELIZA: How do you do. Please state your problem.
Me : I must find an answer to an important question
ELIZA: You say you must find an answer to an important question ?
Me : yes
ELIZA: You seem to be quite positive.
Me : Can computers think?
ELIZA: Do computers worry you ?
Me : Absolutely
ELIZA: I'm not sure I understand you fully.
Me : The idea that computers can think scares me
ELIZA: Why do you mention computers ?
Me : Because a thinking computer scares me
ELIZA: What do you think machines have to do with your problem ?
Me : Don't you listen?
ELIZA: We were discussing you -- not me.
Me : I am afraid of thinking computers
ELIZA: Don't you think computers can help people ?
Me : Maybe
ELIZA: You don't seem quite certain.
Me : no
ELIZA: Are you saying no just to be negative?
Me : I say no because I am not certain
ELIZA: Is it because you are not certain that you came to me ?
Me : yes
ELIZA: You are sure.
Me : I am
ELIZA: How long have you been ?
Me : all the time
ELIZA: Please go on.
Me : Are you a computer?
ELIZA: What about machines worrys you ?
Me : machines have no soul
ELIZA: You are being a bit negative.
Me : it is true
ELIZA: What does that suggest to you ?
Me : It suggests that machines are not human
ELIZA: Did you think they might not be not human ?
Me : They are not human
ELIZA: Would you like it if they were not not human ?
Me : Oh yes
ELIZA: I see.


She understood and took the burden from my shoulders. I could go on with my preparations and reading.

I am a great fan of Weizenbaum. He died in 2008 in Berlin. He was the creator of the computerprogram ELIZA, which acts as an empathic psychologist. Conversations with her can be really hilarious.

Some people really took ELIZA serious and openen their heart for her, discussing intimate personal problems. But it all began with Alan Turing, who wrote in 1950 a paper named "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".

He begins his article thus: "I propose to consider the question "Can machines think?" This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms 'machine' and 'think'. The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous."

Why is this attitude dangerous? Simple, there is no proper definition for "thinking" availabe. But then it goes wrong, when he says "Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words."

Turing comes with the appealing question "Can machines think?" A question that drives me into the arms of ELIZA, but there could a hidden agenda too ;-) and then suggest to replace it with another question. What in the world may mean CLOSELY related?

Anyway, his new question is something like "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the [Turing test]"? The picture here (also found at shows you the set up of the test.

So this is closely related "thinking"? The fact that a computer can show the same conversational behavior as a human being? The Turing test is based on the assumption that human beings can judge a machine's intelligence by comparing its behaviour with human behaviour.

There it is....intelligence. There neither is a proper definition for intelligence. What kind of intelligence? Didn't we learn about emotional intelligence by Goodman's book, or social intelligence?

I think, that Turing was trapped in his historical context. Just imagine, though gigantic machines, they had the first electric machines which were able to perform complex calculations, just like a human can.

And then we have our imagination.......if this is possible, there definitely is more to come. When I am not mistaken, the computer Turing describes in his test, wasn't even technically possible in 1950, only theoretically.

The Turing Test has become a classic in the history of artificial intelligence and Weizenbaum's ELIZA would be a candidate to pass the test. But philosophically it doesn't bring much if it is regarding the question "Can my computer think?"

But we live in a time period in which people more and more tend to believe that computers can think. Did it never occur to you? You call the office and say "You sent me a letter telling me that I haven't paid my bill."

"Yes we did, sir" " But I have paid my bill, weeks ago." "I am sorry Sir, but the computer says that you have not paid your bill, so we sent you that reminder." "But your computer is wrong!" "I am sorry Sir, it is says it here on my screen: you have not yet paid."

It can be even more bizarre. Here in the Netherlands we have a TV commercial like this; Young couple in bar. She just met him. Is he the perfect partner? Send an SMS message with your name and his name to number XXXX and the computer gives you the answer in no time.

Girl does so. Score 3% !!! As a conclusion she throws the content of her glass in the face of the young man.
Or this one: Send your name and your wifes name to number XXXX and the computer gives you in no time the perfect name for your baby.

Something is wrong here with man and computer. So it wont be overkill to spend another lecture on the philosophy of Artificial Intelligence: AI

John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1956, defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines." But is intelligence the product of the interaction of all kinds of materials, put together in a factory, or is it product of the fact that we are dealing LIVING matter?

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks.....
[13:23] Scope Cleaver: Floor's open?
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: already?
[13:23] herman Bergson: go ahead :-)
[13:24] Laila Schuman: i find it necessary to get that definition of intelligence... just as we need a definition of education... depends upon whom is speaking
[13:24] Scope Cleaver: Well I think the Turing test is still very relevant today and better than anything we have so far
[13:24] Scope Cleaver: That definition of intelligence I think is a bit tricky
[13:24] Ludwig John: sometimes I suppose that my writing programm is intelligent: I write some letters and it completes the whole word
[13:24] Laila Schuman: yes
[13:24] herman Bergson: Well in the world of AI it has not so much meaning
[13:24] Laila Schuman: agreed
[13:24] Scope Cleaver: If I introduce you to someone and ask you, do you find that person intelligent, you don't go into definitions of intelligence
[13:24] Laila Schuman: no but i have opinions
[13:25] Scope Cleaver: intelligence is about human performance
[13:25] Paula Dix: ive read a part of a Dennet book where he talk about turing test, very interesting
[13:25] Scope Cleaver: Machine intelligence is about how well it emulates that
[13:25] Laila Schuman: and a lot depends upon whether they or i are significantly more or less intelligent than the other
[13:25] herman Bergson: yes if you define intelligence in a behavioristic or functional way
[13:25] Scope Cleaver: Thats the generally received view yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: we call emulation intelligent behavior
[13:26] Scope Cleaver: Note that it's one thing to have an intelligent thinking machine
[13:26] Scope Cleaver: that doesnt mean it's conscious or that even has to be
[13:26] herman Bergson: But the reat question was Can machines think
[13:26] Laila Schuman: finding the result of a math problem or giving a reply based on grammar...does not mean one doing it can apply it
[13:26] Scope Cleaver: Yes they can
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and will they ever really be able to
[13:27] Scope Cleaver: Unless we're willing to debate whether anything *can* think, machines certainly can.
[13:27] Paula Dix: When ive seen this would be the theme for today, i put this question to the people here at home, and Fat said its unfair to judge computers in the state they are, since they are so limited
[13:27] herman Bergson: If so is only a matter of definition
[13:27] Paula Dix: He say they are intelligent, but something in the level of a lizzard :)))
[13:27] Scope Cleaver: Yes you can debate semantics of course
[13:27] Scope Cleaver: But like I said it's interesting that people dont' do that when you ask them to judge if another person is intelilgent.
[13:28] Jangle McElroy: I guess it might be easier to suggest machines can calculate based on rules, where as man can create without rules.
[13:28] Scope Cleaver: they seem to have a sensible sense of what intelligent means when asked about someone else but then discuss and debate semantics when it's a machine.
[13:28] herman Bergson: Another person you say....not another computer,,,that is the difference
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: that makes sense to me jangle
[13:28] Paula Dix: Scope but we see all the time people passing judgments because someone was born here or there and so on, its the same thing
[13:28] Scope Cleaver: But thats the beauty of the Turing test
[13:28] Scope Cleaver: it doesn't tell you at the onset which is which
[13:29] Scope Cleaver: You only interact with the other entity via teletext
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes indeed....
[13:29] Scope Cleaver: But whether you pass judgment or not is completely immaterial to whether an entity is or isn't intelligent.
[13:29] herman Bergson: But Turing had to change his question...and had to drop the fundamental concept of thinking
[13:30] Scope Cleaver: What matters is, is there a test we can devise that would realiably tell us if an entity is intelligent
[13:30] Paula Dix: oh, you dont know what we brazilians think about portugueses!!!! :))))
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Scope..from a pragmatic point of view..if it works it works...whether it is a computer or a man doing the job
[13:30] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:30] Scope Cleaver: Right
[13:31] herman Bergson: But the question Can computers think suggest much more...
[13:31] Scope Cleaver: It's a very complex question, but I think the interesting part reside in our formulating the question the right way, somehow the turing test helps us do that
[13:31] herman Bergson: it is close to the idea..Have computers a mind?
[13:31] Scope Cleaver: it's has flaws of course but it's overall a good test
[13:31] Scope Cleaver: hehe yes indeed but the word "mind" opens a big can of worms semantically speaking
[13:31] Scope Cleaver: For instance you'd get a different definition for everyone in this room
[13:31] herman Bergson: A test of what...? That human behavior can be emulated by machines?
[13:31] herman Bergson: We have factories ful of robots
[13:32] Scope Cleaver: A test for intelligence
[13:32] Scope Cleaver: Which is plain performance of cognitive functions
[13:32] herman Bergson: No....for it only is about emulating huma conversatin
[13:32] Scope Cleaver: memory, reasoning, inference, and so on
[13:32] Scope Cleaver: the human conversation part is just a tool
[13:32] herman Bergson: And I would define intelligence as the ability to have a converstaion
[13:32] Paula Dix: I would say the moment computers have capacity similar to a human brain the question will be solved
[13:33] Scope Cleaver: I belive it' s more than that but the point is, a conversation can help you determine if an entity is intelligent
[13:33] Scope Cleaver: we'd have to establish necessary and sufficient conditions
[13:33] herman Bergson: memory, reasoning, inference yes....but imagination, intentionality,
[13:33] Scope Cleaver: Thats a scientic question herman
[13:33] herman Bergson: also part of us as intelligent beings
[13:34] herman Bergson: It is an observation
[13:34] Scope Cleaver: For instance it isn't clear how *we* aren't machines that in itself is very debetable
[13:34] Paula Dix: but we are machines
[13:34] Jangle McElroy: Intelligence tests often rely on observation and calculation. Making a calculator with a large memory capable of simulating intelligence.
[13:34] Scope Cleaver: Like I said it's debatable
[13:34] Scope Cleaver: The general received view is that we are.
[13:35] Paula Dix: the divisions, the labels, are all artificial
[13:35] Scope Cleaver: it depends what your materialistic position is
[13:35] herman Bergson: The Turing Test is just a very narrow view on what thinking entails,I would say
[13:35] Scope Cleaver: It's just a tool
[13:35] Paula Dix: i bet tons of humans wouldnt pass turing test
[13:35] herman Bergson: but completely outdated...
[13:35] Scope Cleaver: You see it has to have something ont he table that *both* humans and machine could do
[13:36] Scope Cleaver: communicating through text is one
[13:36] Laila Schuman: is an education the ability to pass tests... or is there something within the educated person that has much more going on... whether they pass tests or not
[13:36] Scope Cleaver: there is a clear reason why he choose to have text via teletext instead of voice for instance or acting
[13:36] Ze Novikov: in the end it is about sequencial series of data or non sequential...
[13:36] Paula Dix: dennett mentions a situation where people couldnt pick the machine on the test
[13:37] Scope Cleaver: Yes paula when that happens
[13:37] Scope Cleaver: when you results are 50/50 you can safely say you have true AI
[13:37] Laila Schuman: can a computer tell a joke that is not fed to it
[13:37] Scope Cleaver: It could why not?
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: to me it demonstrates that a machine can be intelligent but does it really have intelligence if it does not have feelings too
[13:37] Paula Dix: they made a program to simulate paranoia, and psychiatrists had to say who was the machine between real paranoics
[13:37] herman Bergson: It could?
[13:37] Scope Cleaver: Can a bunch of gray matter cells tell a joke thats not fed to it? haha
[13:37] Paula Dix: they couldnt, because they couldnt go really deep on the questions for fear of causing damage to the persons
[13:38] Paula Dix: so they all got it wrong
[13:38] herman Bergson: Yes it can can think of a new joke..a play of words and so on
[13:38] Scope Cleaver: in that case yes, I think a machine could do that as well ㋡
[13:38] Paula Dix: lol somewhere the jokes where invented
[13:38] Scope Cleaver: Exactly my point
[13:39] Scope Cleaver: So there is cognitive work being done to come up with a joke
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes..jokes are invented..but not rule based, but by deviating from rules
[13:39] Ludwig John: can a computer write a novel or a poem?
[13:39] Scope Cleaver: Something an AI could do
[13:39] Jangle McElroy: Tell a joke? Or create a joke? Creation is perhaps closer to free will and intelligence than calculation. It's a bit like the tests that show computers can write music - it often sounds fomulaic rather than freeform and flowing.
[13:39] Scope Cleaver: Ludwig yes
[13:39] Scope Cleaver: and in fact, theoretically it doesn't even need to be intelligent to do it
[13:39] Scope Cleaver: it could do it by fluke hehe ㋡
[13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Jangle....that is the case indeed
[13:40] Paula Dix: but its again the same point, computers "brains" are still too small
[13:40] Paula Dix: they do music or anything with this small capacity
[13:40] Scope Cleaver: Someone mentioned Dennett earlier I think he has that monkey typing a play by fluke as an example
[13:40] Paula Dix: surely not like us, but that will change with time
[13:40] Paula Dix: No that was Dawkins :))
[13:41] Scope Cleaver: We're a bunch of decades away but I don't think the question of when is that interesting
[13:41] herman Bergson: We'll definitely dig into those issues the next lecture..:-)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well the bet is set to 2029 now
[13:41] Paula Dix: i wonder, someone here think computers cant thing?
[13:41] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:41] Scope Cleaver: i think thats way early hehe
[13:41] Qwark Allen: close to that hermman
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: i do not think they can tghink
[13:41] Daruma Boa: i think they think^
[13:42] Qwark Allen: they will
[13:42] Daruma Boa: my mac does^^
[13:42] Qwark Allen: in time
[13:42] Scope Cleaver: I wont' pass *my* turing test by 2029 not to be presumptuous lol
[13:42] herman Bergson: my opinion computer cant think...
[13:42] Paula Dix: my vote is for yes too :))
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: i think they only think what we tell them to think
[13:42] Gemma Cleanslate: so far anyway
[13:42] Jangle McElroy: :)
[13:42] herman Bergson: the perfor rulebased actions
[13:42] Daruma Boa: no, these days there r programms, which learn
[13:42] Paula Dix: but herman our brains also dont work like that?
[13:42] Ze Novikov: every evening I fight with my computer .." Now time to turn you off and go to bed....."
[13:43] Scope Cleaver: What is of interest is that *once* they are as intelligent as we are... they won't stay that miserable for long
[13:43] herman Bergson: no....the idea that the brain is a computer is a nice metaphor but a flaw
[13:43] Laila Schuman: lol
[13:43] Paula Dix: lol imagine when computers are bigger and start to have personalities?? :)))
[13:43] Gemma Cleanslate: or much smaller and do that
[13:43] Daruma Boa: right scope^^
[13:43] Paula Dix: why herman??
[13:43] Scope Cleaver: I think the substrate question is tangential
[13:43] herman Bergson: No. Paula....the size of a machine doesnt count....
[13:43] Scope Cleaver: what intelligence is implement *in* doesn't really matter
[13:43] herman Bergson: To begin with it is Life that counts..
[13:44] herman Bergson: Our mental states are caused by the fact that we are alive
[13:44] Scope Cleaver: herman do you belive there is a quality to life such as an "elan vital"?
[13:44] Jangle McElroy: If computers are ever capable of sentient independent thought, I wonder if they will be like the Orangutan? The human tribes people of Borneo say Orangutans only don't speak because someone would give them a broom and order them to sweep up if they could communicate.
[13:44] Scope Cleaver: A something above the atoms that makes our being?
[13:44] herman Bergson: When you put all chemicals together that consitute still hasnt happen to create living material
[13:45] herman Bergson: No Scope....
[13:45] herman Bergson: It must be those atoms, I think...
[13:45] Scope Cleaver: So what is the magic property?
[13:45] Scope Cleaver: and why machines can't have it?
[13:45] Paula Dix: we are going toward biological computers... will them be alive?
[13:45] herman Bergson: If you knew that we could create living matter in the laboratory
[13:46] Scope Cleaver: I belive thats flawed but thats my opinion.
[13:46] herman Bergson: We may be going to biochemical computers..that's the difference
[13:46] Paula Dix: i think like scope, no difference if its carbon or metal
[13:47] Paula Dix: or silica :))))
[13:47] herman Bergson: Ok.....good material for the next lecture...:-)
[13:47] Scope Cleaver: You'll often find difference in the metaphysics of being is rooted in deep beliefs...
[13:47] Paula Dix: lol yes, thats fun
[13:47] Scope Cleaver: About other stuff ㋡
[13:48] Scope Cleaver: We hope Eliza didn't cause you too many turmoils herman
[13:48] herman Bergson: Well she is a great help :-)
[13:48] Scope Cleaver: Could you believe how many people she helped.
[13:48] Scope Cleaver: Maybe more than any single *human* therapist hehe
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: she is a loop of nothing lol
[13:49] herman Bergson: Some conversations...especially with an improved version can have a positive behavioral effect, I think
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: yes lol
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: is fun
[13:49] Scope Cleaver: Thanks for the stimulating lecture
[13:49] herman Bergson: You should visit Elbot....
[13:49] Daruma Boa: here?
[13:49] Paula Dix: whats elbot?
[13:49] herman Bergson: He is fun to talk with
[13:49] Paula Dix: oh, another program?
[13:49] herman Bergson: Just google on ELBOT
[13:49] Paula Dix: ok
[13:50] herman Bergson: He is another chatbot
[13:50] Daruma Boa: ok will do
[13:50] herman Bergson: Won the Loebner prize
[13:50] Scope Cleaver: *nods*
[13:50] Paula Dix: dennet mention another funnny experiment, a program made to think it was some american politician
[13:50] Scope Cleaver: We'll start to worry when it's more fun to talk to a bot than our spouses
[13:50] Paula Dix: (I think it was american...)
[13:50] Samuel Okelly: i found elbot like having a conversation with a child who wont take its eyes of the TV to talk to you ;-)
[13:50] Scope Cleaver: lol Samuel
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes Scope.....then we have s lost scope indeed
[13:51] Scope Cleaver: Ai is very childlike which is why it isn't fully Ai yet
[13:51] Paula Dix: exact
[13:51] Scope Cleaver: But hey it beat Kasparov at chess, first step to everything
[13:51] herman Bergson: I dont like that argument.....
[13:51] Paula Dix: talking TV, loved the peanuts cartoon!
[13:51] Daruma Boa: why herman?
[13:51] herman Bergson: the argument of poverty...
[13:51] Scope Cleaver: I meant to say it's in developmental stage
[13:52] Scope Cleaver: Learning is a very big component to AI
[13:52] herman Bergson: Well is the same as the belief that eventually Science will solve all problems
[13:52] Daruma Boa: why is it pover?
[13:52] Scope Cleaver: the reasearchers are still baning their head in implementing better learning algorithms in AI
[13:52] Paula Dix: yes, its a belief
[13:52] Paula Dix: should i add "but a right one"? :)))))
[13:53] herman Bergson: It is poverty as it states..oh I am a poor guy now, but wait..I will get rich :-)
[13:53] herman Bergson: When we evaluate AI we have to evaluate it as it IS.
[13:53] herman Bergson: Not on what it promisses to become
[13:53] Scope Cleaver: But thats the beauty of science it can build upon it's own knowledge and discovery
[13:53] Scope Cleaver: yes I agree on that point
[13:54] Paula Dix: yes, its true, but we think it can do this or that and this is a belief
[13:54] Scope Cleaver: But whats important about the "what ir promises to become" part is that we can use that to start now, to think about the ethical problems we will face.
[13:54] Samuel Okelly: science often argues from what may be
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes...that is what we humans can....
[13:54] herman Bergson: Have hope and to program that in a computer?
[13:55] Daruma Boa: mh, i must leave. #
[13:55] Paula Dix: agree, the belief is necessary to orient the way to work
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: exactloy
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: at least now anyway
[13:55] Paula Dix: bye daruma
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Daruma
[13:55] Daruma Boa: will see u thursday i hope.
[13:55] Jangle McElroy: Bye Daruma
[13:55] Rodney Handrick: Bye Gemma
[13:55] Ze Novikov: sequence vs. non-sequence at the end of the day still a machine...
[13:55] herman Bergson: I'll be here...deo volente ^_^
[13:56] Rodney Handrick: Bye Daruma
[13:56] Scope Cleaver: What do you mean Ze?
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: oh i was saying to daruma lollol
[13:56] Scope Cleaver: I don't get the sequence vs. non-sequence, do you mean in the comp-sci way?
[13:56] Ze Novikov: yep
[13:56] Scope Cleaver: i.e. machines can operate in parallel
[13:56] Scope Cleaver: and massively parallel
[13:56] Qwark Allen: i know
[13:57] Ze Novikov: does not change anything
[13:57] Scope Cleaver: So whats your point?
[13:57] herman Bergson: Fuzzy logic, stochatic can program it all
[13:57] Ze Novikov: sequence
[13:57] Ze Novikov: non sequence
[13:57] Ze Novikov: that is not thinking
[13:57] Scope Cleaver: Well how do you suppose the brain works?
[13:57] Ze Novikov: no more than you
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ze. computers don't think..that still is my thesis
[13:57] Ze Novikov: i am explaining the machine
[13:58] Samuel Okelly: has the notion of free-will been abandoned?
[13:58] Jangle McElroy: Perhaps read Idoru by William Gibson if you enjoy storues about computers that are more human than human. It is enjoyable.
[13:58] Scope Cleaver: I agree with herman, maybe they do on a very primitive level
[13:58] Paula Dix: Ze, couldnt that be the first steps toward real thinking?
[13:58] herman Bergson: That is such an issue Samuel
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: oh gosh
[13:58] herman Bergson: Not even on a primitive level....
[13:58] Ze Novikov: nope look at the way they work
[13:59] herman Bergson: the working of a computer can not be called thinking
[13:59] Scope Cleaver: I beg to differ
[13:59] Ze Novikov: i agree herman
[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes we should Scope ^_^
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: me too herman
[13:59] Ze Novikov: it is not thinking
[13:59] Paula Dix: when they have a power of processing equivalent to a human brain it will be thinking
[13:59] Scope Cleaver: Everytime we come up with a definition of thinking and a computer emulates it. we struggle to find something else ㋡
[13:59] Ze Novikov: nope it does not
[13:59] Scope Cleaver: A lot of people said ...
[13:59] Ze Novikov: it imitates
[13:59] Paula Dix: why?
[13:59] Ze Novikov: that is not thinking
[13:59] Paula Dix: but doenst a child brain imitates its parents??
[13:59] Scope Cleaver: when a computer can beat the world champion at chess it will have some thinking...
[14:00] Paula Dix: its build the same way, and trained by parents
[14:00] Ze Novikov: he did it by random numbers
[14:00] Scope Cleaver: Ze you can't hold that kind of argument unless you come clean on what you *mean* by thinking.
[14:00] Ze Novikov: look at the program used
[14:00] herman Bergson: That is the point looks like thinking..
[14:00] Samuel Okelly: how can we program intuitiveness? modern computers cant even produce 1 single random number yet
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: until it gets to about 13 paula
[14:00] Scope Cleaver: But thats begging the question herman
[14:00] Paula Dix: lol Gemma
[14:00] Scope Cleaver: For all I know you *look* like you are thinking too
[14:01] herman Bergson: In a way ..yes...again the definition issue here
[14:01] Scope Cleaver: But we aren't having the solipsistic discussion are we?
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: time to go
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[14:01] Jangle McElroy: Bye gemma
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well.....Be well Gemma...I'll get ready for next Thursday :-)
[14:02] Jangle McElroy: If to err is human, than perhaps computers are already intelligent?
[14:02] Paula Dix: lol
[14:02] herman Bergson: May I thank you all for this inspiring discussion....
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: certainly was lo
[14:02] Samuel Okelly: i should go too .. tc every1 :)
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday
[14:02] Jangle McElroy: See you all soon
[14:02] Scope Cleaver: See you all!
[14:02] Paula Dix: bye!
[14:02] Ze Novikov: Must be off.... ty herman bb all
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: we hope
[14:02] Jangle McElroy: Thanks HErman
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye

No comments:

Post a Comment