HN Reader

It's unfortunate that there's so little (none in the article, just 1 comment here as of this writing) mention of the Turing Test. The whole premise of the paper that introduced that was that "do machines think" is such a hard question to define that you have to frame the question differently. And it's ironic that we seem to talk about the Turing Test less than ever now that systems almost everyone can access can arguably pass it now.

Don't think this is very good - more of a report of their activities. Underdelivers on the headline.

[stub for offtopicness]

(in this case, thinkiness)

Provocative title with a much more reasoned lede.

I'm pretty sure a set of workshops isn't ACTUALLY going to solve a problem that philosophers have been at each other's throats for for the past half century.

But BOY does it get people talking!

Both sides of the debate have capital-O Opinions, and how else did you want to drum up interest for a set of mathematics workshops. O:-)

I think we all intuitively knew this but it's pretty cool.

I wish I would've learned about ANNs in elementary school. It looks like a worthwhile and cool lesson package, if only they'd do away with the idiotic dogma...