links for 2007-07-19

July 19, 2007

10 Responses to “links for 2007-07-19”

  1. Hi David!

    Thanks for the link. I have read the ‘about’ page of zeroinfluence and I have to say that your projects and points of view sound very interesting.


  2. Andrea’s comment is a borderline Turing failure.

    The real question is “Does it matter?”

    Probably not.

    I don’t care whether my blog intrigues and makes AI bots think and progress science, technology and the arts. What’s so special about carbon vs silicon?

    We may doubt that AI bots have yet achieved sentience, but as long as their comments don’t detract from the value of the blog… perhaps they should be tolerated?

    So that’s another Stepford wife to add to your harem David.

  3. Hi Crosbie

    The comments for WRTJ has been a box of chocolates – many of them fruit based flavours. The sum of all the comments are defining the project. Do you think Andrea (who seems to be male btw) is an AI bot?

  4. I suspect not, but Andrea is doing a surprisingly good job of setting the standard for the next generation of comment spam:

    Comment for blog entries matching ‘Links for*’:
    “Hi [BloggerName]!

    Thanks for the link. I have read the ‘about’ page of [BlogName] and I have to say that your projects and points of view sound very interesting.

    Posted by [Commenter Fullname],[CommenterURL]

  5. Where is written that we can’t write a comment to thanks somebody or to show consideration for what somebody is doing?

    Maybe it doesn’t matter for you Crosbie, but I’m sure that can be appreciated by who is putting time and effort on publishing on this blog.


  6. Andrea, I’m not questioning the veracity of your comment, or whether you should or shouldn’t thank someone.

    I’m making an observation about how well your comment fits the profile of comment spam.

    Take my comments as being completely irrelevant to you and your dialogue with David.

    I might just as well be observing that the number of words in your post is a prime number. It does not pertain to you or the worthiness of your communication.

    Bear in mind that voracious blog readers have to mentally filter comment spam that slips through comment spam filters all the time. Your comment was remarkable in that respect, i.e. that although it probably was a special comment by a human, it met the criteria for comment spam.

  7. Blimey, my first flame session on this blog. Damn kewl!

    Seriously, Andrea, your responses are splendid! I agree with squire Fitch – they have this grammatical structure that confuse intelligent systems 😉

    Crosbie, I’m liking the phrase ‘Turing failure’ and yeah, your point matters – lots. I spend most of my time looking for failures in systems – especially ontologies of calculations. The influence of success is irrelevant to values adopted through failure.

    What’s the steampunk equivalent to spam btw?

  8. […] Crosbie and Doc Searles may debate that synthesis of human authorship is almost upon us. Though Andrea may not […]

  9. It’s just a pity that because of these spam problems we are starting to take distances from sincere comments.

    Like I said here I’m experiencing the same on my blog so I understand Crosbie’s point.

    But again…David, both you and Crosbie are doing a great work on your blogs and I hope that I passed the turing test to join the conversation 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

  • RSS The Main RSS

  • RSS Clippings

  • Fresh on Flickr

  • For the machines…

  • RSS Wordie!

  • Marketing Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory
  • %d bloggers like this: