Editing Talk:894: Progeny

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
I believe Megan is talking about actual teaching, not programming.  Computers can gather data, can analyze data, can learn, and can mimic human behavior.  But, they can't teach others what they know.  Cueball's response indicates how little value we as a society place on this skill (i.e. look at the salary of a teacher versus an entertainer of any kind).  The title text makes fun of teaching our children values by suggesting we are just trying to hold on to our ability to beat them in something. [[Special:Contributions/67.78.183.206|67.78.183.206]] 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 
I believe Megan is talking about actual teaching, not programming.  Computers can gather data, can analyze data, can learn, and can mimic human behavior.  But, they can't teach others what they know.  Cueball's response indicates how little value we as a society place on this skill (i.e. look at the salary of a teacher versus an entertainer of any kind).  The title text makes fun of teaching our children values by suggesting we are just trying to hold on to our ability to beat them in something. [[Special:Contributions/67.78.183.206|67.78.183.206]] 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
βˆ’
 
βˆ’
:Computers can teach each other pretty well, even without human intervention if you turn automatic updates on. Also, there are computers teaching humans now - although they can't really teach them all they know, only the things they have teaching programs for. I think that the amount of things computers can't do is rapidly approaching zero. Luckily, there are still lot of things they do much worse that humans, including teaching or inventing better computers. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 11:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 
  
 
I've changed most of the explanation. The first change was that Watson was actually fed a text file containing the question as Trebek was reading it to the human competitors. The game would have been much different if IBM also had to invent a world class speech-to-text system that would then feed into the trivia database. Second change is to why Megan is saying we're good at teaching, programming is a form of teaching: allowing a computer to understand. Third, replaced the title text explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]])  19:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 
I've changed most of the explanation. The first change was that Watson was actually fed a text file containing the question as Trebek was reading it to the human competitors. The game would have been much different if IBM also had to invent a world class speech-to-text system that would then feed into the trivia database. Second change is to why Megan is saying we're good at teaching, programming is a form of teaching: allowing a computer to understand. Third, replaced the title text explanation. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]]<span title="I'm an admin. I can help.">_a</span> ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]])  19:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)