Search results for "C_THR86_2305 Latest Study Guide 📟 Reliable C_THR86_2305 Test Sample ⌛ C_THR86_2305 Braindumps 🥈 Open [ www.pdfvce.com ] and search for [ C_THR86_2305 ] to download exam materials for free 🤲Test C_THR86_2305 Lab Questions"
| Results 671 - 680 of 1053
|
Page 68 of 106
|
|
Sorted by: Relevance | Sort by: Date
|
Results per-page: 10 | 20 | 50 | All
|
[…]in this sectionís final essay, characterizes her work explicitly as CTP. Sengers attempts to formulate new designs for AI agents; such agents, although central to much AI practice (and to many cyberdramatic visions), have customarily engaged in intricate internal behavior that can be difficult for an observer to interpret. Sengersís solution to this problem may be viewed as the inverse of the earlier concern: while theorists trained on film and literature may see simulation too much in terms of narrative, it may be that computer scientists see it too little in these terms. Tabletop game mechanics, if flexible enough, can […]
[…]to building intelligent systems are just completely off-base, and are doomed to fail…. [C]ertainly it is the case that all biological systems…. [b]ehave in a way which just simply seems life-like in a way that our robots never do. Perhaps we have all missed some organizing principle of biological systems, or some general truth about them. Perhaps there is a way of looking at biological systems which will illuminate an inherent necessity in some aspect of the interactions of their parts that is completely missing from our artificial systems…. [P]erhaps at this point we simply do not get it, and… […]
[…]there are several reasons for this. Flash-forwards are highly problematic, since describing events-to-come means that the player’s actions do not really matter. Flash-forwards can be included as indicating something either outside the player’s influence or something that the player has to fight to reach. (This then ceases to make sense as a flash-forward, if the player doesn’t reach it.) Using cut-scenes or in-game artifacts, it is possible to describe events that lead to the current event time, but doing an interactive flashback leads to the classical time machine problem: the player’s actions in the past may suddenly render the present […]
[…]that is designated, in an imminent present, as the future. The future is always history” (210). [For a look at a similar attempt to historicize the present, see Darren Tofts’ review of Murphie and Potts, and O’Mahony, in Histories of the Present. In the same vein, Steven Shaviro reviews a work of fiction, Bruce Sterling’s Tomorrow Now, in Histories of the Future ] Rather than provide a shallow accounting of all the book’s offerings, I will examine more closely two essays from each section. Given the eclectic quality of the collection, I do not offer these as representative, but rather […]
[…]whole, which, in turn, creates the parts” (87). For Taylor, Kant and Hegel were thus the first to formulate the principle of self-organization, or autopoiesis, which 20th century systems theorists would later identify as the characteristic feature of all complex systems. Similarly, Taylor relates key concepts in complexity theory to Kierkegaard’s critique of Hegel’s idealism. Kierkegaard’s criticism of Hegel is that lived experience can never be totalized into a coherent “system.” Experience instead involves moments of radically free decision-making, which realize some possibilities of experience and cut off others. Although these decisions can assume meaning in hindsight, they can never […]
[…]Plummeting to her certain death, she is rescued in mid-air by Superman (aka: a man made of steel [and, for all we know, in some instances, of bits and bytes]), in his first appearance both in Metropolis and in the film. Such is his innate tenderness and his fine-tuning as a deus ex machina that he alters his ascending velocity to her descending velocity in order to spare her any damage from their impact. As he scoops her up in his arms, he reassuringly exclaims: “I’ve got you!” She instantly responds, with the awed and inquiring mind of a journalist […]
[…]this is a good way to understand critical technical practices: it entails having one foot in an AI Lab and the other in science studies or cultural studies. I.e., the other foot needs to be in an area that can give one perspective on the limits of what one is doing back at the lab. Perhaps, following Noah (Wardrip-Fruin and Moss, 2002), one needs three feet to participate in a critical technical practice. That may be the case, but my point is simply that those of us who right now call what we do a critical technical practice have all, […]
[…]class from other machine speech systems, such as automated telephone reception systems or desktop computer text-to-speech software? She observes that a defining quality of these devices is that the voice is not interpreted as being a message from a person separated by time or space from the listener: it is the voice of the device. It is not “recording” and it is not telematically-facilitated conversation (phone) or address (radio and TV). Apart from her reference to talking elevators and car alarms, the separate class is defined by three characteristics: their physical manifestation as handheld commodities; their utterly rudimentary behavior; and […]
[…]languishing in the invention orphanage of Xerox PARC waiting for Steve Jobs and his design team to come find it and adopt it. Navigation through digital space has changed a great deal since 1980. Interactors are used to surfing the Web by mouse-clicks, arriving at Web “sites” and departing from them. The change from file transfer protocol, which users thought of as the “uploading” and “downloading” – or shipping and receiving – of containers of bits, to hypertext transfer protocol, which users experience as personally traveling from one place to another is, among other things, a change in dramatic expectations. […]
[…]makes reading (or playing) Online Caroline a very new experience. Online Caroline is a story told to and, importantly, with its reader. It’s built around a database that collects the information I feed it as I read. I answer questions about myself and the program uses that information to generate personalised e-mails from Caroline to me. When I visit Caroline’s web site the version I see depends on how much of the story I’ve read. Each day I’m limited to one episode, consisting of an e-mail and the appropriate version of the web site. In addition to the daily webcam […]