Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition) book.
Happy reading Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition) Pocket Guide.
Come sono cresciuta, ho iniziato a soffrire di agorafobia, disturbi ossessivi compulsivi e depressione clinica. Ho pensato che quello che avevo andasse oltre la timidezza. Mi sono domandata con che cosa stessi combattendo. E ho aspettato che qualcuno mi aiutasse, ma nessuno si disturbava a farlo.
Ho iniziato ad avere attacchi di panico, e, ancora peggio, pensieri di morte. Un anno fa, mi sono ripresa da quei giorni bui. Ho fatto una promessa a me stessa che non mi sarei arresa.
Il mutismo selettivo non era una maledizione, ma un regalo. Ho partecipato a Toastmasters. Risate Applausi Toastmasters mi ha mostrato la luce e la speranza per il futuro. Ho esitato un paio di volte, ma mi sono rifiutata di farmi trascinare indietro nel buio. Toastmasters ha sviluppato la mia forza e confidenza. Sono diventata una consulente al Youth Playhouse Theater. Sono entrata al college. Fin dal primo giorno di scuola, ho alzato la mano quasi ogni giorno. Ci sono nuove sfide da affrontare, come diventare una bibliotecaria e un'autrice di bestseller. Un fiore non sboccia in una notte.
Non diventa da bocciolo a fiore all'improvviso. Ci vuole pazienza, tempo, e tantissima preziosa noia.
Somethin' Stupid - Wikipedia
Applausi English to Italian: Can a computer write poetry? This is a provocative question. You think about it for a minute, and you suddenly have a bunch of other questions like: What is a computer? What is poetry? What is creativity? But these are questions that people spend their entire lifetime trying to answer, not in a single TED Talk. So we're going to have to try a different approach. So up here, we have two poems. One of them is written by a human, and the other one's written by a computer.
I'm going to ask you to tell me which one's which. You're not going to have long to read because we haven't got long to do this speech. Have a go, start reading. Hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human. OK, most of you. Hands up if you think Poem 2 was written by a human. Very brave of you, because the first one was written by the human poet William Blake. The second one was written by an algorithm that took all the language from my Facebook feed on one day and then regenerated it algorithmically, according to methods that I'll describe a little bit later on.
But most of you got that right, it's probably a little bit easy. So let's try another test. Again, you haven't got ages to read this, so just trust your gut. Poem 1: A lion roars and a dog barks. Poem 2: Oh! So if you think the first poem was written by a human, put your hand up. And if you think the second poem was written by a human, put your hand up. It was much harder.
The answer is, the first poem was generated by an algorithm called Racter, that was created back in the s, and the second poem was written by a guy called Frank O'Hara, who happens to be one of my favorite human poets. Laughter So what we've just done now is a Turing test for poetry. The Turing test was first proposed by this guy, Alan Turing, in , in order to answer the question, can computers think?
Alan Turing believed that if a computer was able to have a to have a text-based conversation with a human, with such proficiency such that the human couldn't tell whether they are talking to a computer or a human, then the computer can be said to have intelligence.
- Tennis: Nostalgia and Playing the Game PDF Book - Mediafile Sharing.
- Is American Psychiatric Practice Diseased Beyond Recovery;
- The Shaping of Ulster Presbyterian Belief and Practice, 1770-1840!
- Un anno di "Lo leggo dopo".
- How To Get My Ex-Girlfriend Back: Secrets To Luring Her Back To Your Arms?
So in , my friend Benjamin Laird and I, we created a Turing test for poetry online. It's called bot or not, and you can go and play it for yourselves. But basically, it's the game we just played. You're presented with a poem, you don't know whether it was written by a human or a computer and you have to guess. So thousands and thousands of people have taken this test online, so we have results.
And what are the results? Well, Turing said that if a computer could fool a human 30 percent of the time that it was a human, then it passes the Turing test for intelligence.
We have poems on the bot or not database that have fooled 65 percent of human readers into thinking it was written by a human. So, I think we have an answer to our question. According to the logic of the Turing test, can a computer write poetry?
Well, yes, absolutely it can. But if you're feeling a little bit uncomfortable with this answer, that's OK.
If you're having a bunch of gut reactions to it, that's also okay because this isn't the end of the story. Let's play our third and final test. Again, you're going to have to read and tell me which you think is human. Poem 1: Red flags the reason for pretty flags. So hands up if you think Poem 1 was written by a human. Whoa, that's a lot more people. So you'd be surprised to find that Poem 1 was written by the very human poet Gertrude Stein.
Now before we go on, let me describe very quickly and simply, how RKCP works. So RKCP is an algorithm designed by Ray Kurzweil, who's a director of engineering at Google and a firm believer in artificial intelligence.go here
Tre settimane, un mondo (Super bestseller) (Italian Edition)
So, you give RKCP a source text, it analyzes the source text in order to find out how it uses language, and then it regenerates language that emulates that first text. So in the poem we just saw before, Poem 2, the one that you all thought was human, it was fed a bunch of poems by a poet called Emily Dickinson and looked at the way she used language, learned the model, and then it regenerated a model according to that same structure. But the important thing to know about RKCP is that it doesn't know the meaning of the words it's using. The language is just raw material, it could be Chinese, it could be in Swedish, it could be the collected language from your Facebook feed for one day.
It's just raw material. And nevertheless, it's able to create a poem that seems more human than Gertrude Stein's poem, and Gertrude Stein is a human. So what we've done here is, more or less, a reverse Turing test. So Gertrude Stein, who's a human, is able to write a poem that fools a majority of human judges into thinking that it was written by a computer. Therefore, according to the logic of the reverse Turing test, Gertrude Stein is a computer. Laughter Feeling confused? I think that's fair enough.
So far we've had humans that write like humans, we have computers that write like computers, we have computers that write like humans, but we also have, perhaps most confusingly, humans that write like computers. So what do we take from all of this?
A New Guide to Italian Cinema
Do we take that William Blake is somehow more of a human than Gertrude Stein? Or that Gertrude Stein is more of a computer than William Blake? Laughter These are questions I've been asking myself for around two years now, and I don't have any answers. But what I do have are a bunch of insights about our relationship with technology. So my first insight is that, for some reason, we associate poetry with being human. So that when we ask, "Can a computer write poetry?
How do we say who or what can be part of this category? I also believe that Alan Turing understood this, and that when he devised his test back in , he was doing it as a philosophical provocation. So my second insight is that, when we take the Turing test for poetry, we're not really testing the capacity of the computers because poetry-generating algorithms, they're pretty simple and have existed, more or less, since the s.
What we are doing with the Turing test for poetry, rather, is collecting opinions about what constitutes humanness. So, what I've figured out, we've seen this when earlier today, we saw that William Blake is more of a human than Gertrude Stein. Of course, this doesn't mean that William Blake was actually more human or that Gertrude Stein was more of a computer. It simply means that the category of the human is unstable. This has led me to understand that the human is not a cold, hard fact. Rather, it is something that's constructed with our opinions and something that changes over time.
That is to say, the category of the human is unstable. So my final insight is that the computer, more or less, works like a mirror that reflects any idea of a human that we show it. We show it Emily Dickinson, it gives Emily Dickinson back to us.