The ones I know most about are some British school level exams (IGCSEs, for a few subjects) and they require an elaborate setup including a second device with a camera pointing at the candidate.
The goal posts were never set at the "Turing test"
It's not a real thing. You do not remember the goal posts ever being there.
Turing put forth a thought experiment in the early days of some discussions about "artificial" thinking machines on a very philisophical level.
Add to that, nobody who claims to have "passed" the turing test has ever done an actual example of that thought experiment, which is about taking two respondents and finding out which is human. It is NOT talking to a single respondent and deciding whether they are an LLM or not.
It also has never been considered a valid "test" of "intelligence" as it was obvious from the very very beginning that tricking a person wasn't really meaningful, as most people can be tricked by even simple systems.
ELIZA was the end of any thought around "The turing test", as it was able to "trick" tons of people and show how useless the turing thought experience was. Anyone who claims ELIZA is intelligent would be very silly.
> If a SMTP mailer trying to send email to somewhere logs 'cannot contact port 25 on <remote host>', that is not an error in the local system and should not be logged at level 'error'.
A mail program not being to checks notes send emails sounds like an error to me. (Unless you implement retries.)
It can also mean: I prefer the police catching murderers. I'm fine when wife cheaters get caught in the drag net.
Privacy advocates never admit that there is not only a "next" government abusing surveillance, but also a "current" one, which uses surveillance for beneficial purposes.
I am a privacy advocate, and also am disappointed at how narrow minded some of the arguments of privacy advocates are.
"Banning encrypted chat will just mean the bad people moved to banned platforms". Perhaps, but some bad people have to operate where victims are (Facebook stalkers, eBay cons, ...)
"Police should be forced to just do... actual police work."
It's pretty reasonably for police to want to increase the chances and speed of resolution.
We should champion and defend privacy, in spite of the good reasons to weaken it. There's no need to strawmen.
> Or are you building another dashboard, another admin panel, another e-commerce site, another blog, another SaaS app that's fundamentally just forms and tables and lists?
Install an open source admin panel and call it a day.
Yes, AD is the value proposition. Your employees can get cloud-synced, multi-user real-time editing of documents. This is what kills the "but my Linux app can do it for free."
It runs on-premise, has all kinds of certificates and has a history of half a cenutry (give or take.) That kills Google Docs.
It's cross-paltform, killing whatever Apple thinks it has.
Too many people think Word is a text editor. I'd use Notepad++ if it had full AD integration. But it doesnt.
Who sits in front of the PC, who is nearby?
The rest is kind of besides the point then.
reply