Strange things from the internet

[ali]

Nov 4, 2024 6:50:43 GMT celebaelin said:

I guess this is the place for the following since there isn't an 'Utterly Pointless Work' thread.

There are people who are determined to take stuff literally even when the whole use and intention is to make a figurative point - this is one such example.

Known as the "infinite monkey theorem", the thought-experiment has long been used to explain the principles of probability and randomness.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c748kmvwyv9o?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-gb

In the usual recounting it is the monkeys that are infinite not the time allowed.

That I think is the key point - an infinite number of monkeys WOULD produce Shakespeare's complete works (in as short a space of time as it could take to type it) as well as the text of every other document, anthology, book, play, leaflet, shopping list or post it note ever written.  You can't have an infinite number of monkeys in a non infinite universe but that's beside the point.  Outlining the practical problems doesn't undermine the value of the concept which is to point out that answers can be randomly hit upon given enough 'monkey hours' although they will not necessarily be understood or even recognised; this is part of the problem with current AI of course - it doesn't actually know what it's doing or even act as if it does because of the lack of levels of sophistication in the programming.  On the other hand skilled humans will, to a large extent, understand what they are doing individually because they need to in order to do it effectively; unskilled or unthinking humans are essentially no better than monkeys in this interpretation.

Here is the article in question. It considers the probabilities that an obtainable number of monkeys (one is the base case) could type various things (such as 'banana') in a set time. It's tone is fairly tongue-in-cheek, but the maths seems sound.

[crissdee]

But, if I'm reading Cel's post aright,the point is that the maths, however sound it may be, is utterly irrelevant, as the statement is entirely figurative. No one has ever suggested that any amount of monkeys should be given access to any amount of typewriters for any amount of time. Nor has anyone suggested putting cats in boxes, although my old cat Benjy would head straight for any open box, whether it was of a size to fit him or not...

[RLDavies]

I've been grumbling over the same thing. The usual posit is both infinite monkeys and infinite time (though you're right, a truly infinite number of monkeys would produce everything instantaneously anyway). A universe full of monkeys existing until the ultimate heat death is a vast number, but it's not infinite.

I'm not going to say the mathematicians got it backwards, because they set out to calculate whether it would happen with one monkey (promoted to chimp) and the lifespan of the universe, and that's what they calculated. But the BBC reporter understood nothing at all. The whole point of the exercise is to try to get a grasp of what "infinity" means, not what randomness is. You can adequately explain probability and randomness by tossing coins and rolling dice.

[pdr]

It's a matter of terminology. If you want to take the thought exercise literally it needs an infinite number of monkeys AND a timeline because it would require as a minimum the physical time taken to type the volume of text at (say) 120wpm. This assumes that the assertion says that given an infinite number of monkeys each typing randomly the output of one of them will be the works of Shakespeare - that one monkey would still take several months/years to complete the typing. If you assume that the output can be shared amongst all the monkeys you get into all sorts of difficult areas around the level of sharing - is it shared at book level, page level, paragraph level, word level or even character level (Iain M Banks reference here for anyone who's interested). It then drags into the weeds of frequency distribution of characters in the language etc, and that way madness lies.

A better way to express the question might be to express the assertion in terms of an infinite number of monkey-hours. This gives two degrees of freedom and eliminates the problematic aspect completely.

But it's a throw-away remark to illustrate a point about entropy and the nature of randomness - people shouldn't over-think it!

PDR

[crissdee]

For various reasons, I ended up subscribed to a secondhand car dealers site that sends me regular emails about whatever they're trying to flog. Today, it is American cars, and some of their comments are wryly amusing. Regarding the Cadillac CTS;

"The CTS is another failed attempt to get Cadillac to take off in the UK. The interior isn't much to shout about unless you like fake wood..."

The Tesla Model S;

"A dual motor example will offer face-bending acceleration and the batteries should hold up okay - just don't expect build quality to be outstanding...."

The Chevrolet Corvette;

"As American as apple pie and cheese-in-a-can, an old Corvette isn't going to be a masterclass in how a sports car should drive."

And finally, the Jeep Wrangler;

"The Jeep Wrangler isn't an especially good car. It's agricultural, wayward and a bit silly."

[tetsabb]

1980s Italian disco music. Apparently it was a thing.

[crissdee]

Heard, and definitely seen, worse...

[suze]

There's nothing wrong with Italian disco music!  

European disco music was always a hard sell in North America - even Abba only had one #1 in the US - but this piece of Italian disco music was a hit in both Britain and Canada when TGH and I had just about reached double digit ages.  Not in the US, though.  Sra Carrà identified as a communist, so she didn't even try to get a visa.

This piece of Italian disco music is perhaps less memorable.  Well, the song is unmemorable anyway.  Her greatest hits album is rather boringly tirled The Very Best of Sabrina.  Would Sabrina's Big Hits have been tasteless?

[tetsabb]

I would describe Ms Carra's song as 'Latin' rather than 'disco'. Just needs a Carlos Santana guitar break...

[efros]

Original Italian version, I think it is better. Probably helped by the near arse crack revealing costume.

[crissdee]

It is a somewhat "immodest" cut, isn't it?

[efros]

Take a kids toy and mix in some healthy(?) adult humour...