However, the sound card and CD writer had just been replaced because of the same problem. What was really strange was that the system sounds worked and the CD would record files just fine as long as you didn't use Nero.
After they had the CD drive and sound card replaced, everything had worked fine for about two weeks. My other client with a strange problem had PeoplePC and which gave her an error the first time she tried to connect, but worked perfectly the second time. Both clients seemed a little annoyed at my answer when the asked me what as wrong. I told them that I wasn't sure what was causing the problem, I just knew how to fix it. How is it possible that you can fix something without understanding how it works?
I have no idea. Without such common ground, a computer cannot help but be confused. Babies and parents, not to mention strangers lacking a common language, communicate effectively all the time, based solely on gestures and a shared context they build up over even a short time. As two people conversing rely more and more on previously shared concepts, the same area of their brains — the right superior temporal gyrus — becomes more active blue is activity in communicator, orange is activity in interpreter.
This suggests that this brain region is key to mutual understanding as people continually update their shared understanding of the context of the conversation to improve mutual understanding.
Stolk argues that scientists and engineers should focus more on the contextual aspects of mutual understanding, basing his argument on experimental evidence from brain scans that humans achieve nonverbal mutual understanding using unique computational and neural mechanisms. Some of the studies Stolk has conducted suggest that a breakdown in mutual understanding is behind social disorders such as autism. Stolk and his colleagues discuss the importance of conceptual alignment for mutual understanding in an opinion piece appearing Jan.
He then placed both players in an fMRI functional magnetic resonance imager and scanned their brains as they nonverbally communicated with one another via computer. A game in which players try to communicate the rules without talking or even seeing one another helps neuroscientists isolate the parts of the brain responsible for mutual understanding. One program worked by pretending to be paranoid ; others have done well by tossing off one-liners that distract interlocutors.
The fakery involved in most efforts at beating the Turing test is emblematic: the real mission of A. To try and get the field back on track, Levesque is encouraging artificial-intelligence researchers to consider a different test that is much harder to game, building on work he did with Leora Morgenstern and Ernest Davis a collaborator of mine. Together, they have created a set of challenges called the Winograd Schemas , named for Terry Winograd , a pioneering artificial-intelligence researcher at Stanford.
In the early nineteen-seventies, Winograd asked what it would take to build a machine that could answer a question like this:. The town councillors refused to give the angry demonstrators a permit because they feared violence.
Who feared violence? Levesque, Davis, and Morgenstern have developed a set of similar problems, designed to be easy for an intelligent person but hard for a machine merely running Google searches. Some are more or less Google-proof simply because they are about made-up people, who, by definition, have few Google hits:. Instead, answering this question demands a fairly deep understanding of the subtleties of human language and the nature of social interaction.
For example:. The large ball crashed right through the table because it was made of Styrofoam.
0コメント