Update: Please post entries to the challenge subordinate to Re: X-prize Suggestions here please! and leave the main thread for discussion arising from this node itself. Thanks--Buk.

The following was sparked by reading this X-Prize for world's 'Holy Grails' article on the BBC.

Having read it, including the bit about a Skype having recently won a (non-X-prize) award for it's voice-over-IP service, I got to wondering what I would consider a suitable challenge for the new X-prizes. Especially with respect to software (and to keep this on-topic, no matter what it is, there would always be at least some scope for 'it' having a Perl component or two.)

The usual suspects crossed my mind. Artificial Intelligence; Natural language processing; a generic way to optimise algorithms for 'solving' NP complete problems; but each of these seems to miss the mark that:

that X-prize problem proposals must have a good chance of succeeding within a reasonable timescale.

Then I got to thinking about why I felt that the above problems failed to satisfy this criteria? The conclusion I reached is that they are too generic; too open in their specification. The recently won Ansari X-Prize (Nice one Burt), had a very clear judgement criteria. Two flights by the same vehicle, carrying 3-persons (or equivalents), to a height of 100 kms or greater, within a timeframe of 2 weeks. Clear, concise and unambiguous*.

*Unless your a Ferngi lawyer who might consider the definition of "2 weeks" ambiguous:)

More importantly, it didn't carry with it any unnecessary additional criteria. Whilst most of those attempting to pursue the prize settled into emulating the Saturn V model, this was in no way encapsulated into the specification. Unlike say, the world land speed record specification which applies an additional criteria beyond the "average of two runs with 1 hour", but specifying that the vehicle must have 4 wheels--the undoing of at least one very good attempt in the last century.

The restriction of the rules to the necessary criteria allowed Burt Rutan to "think outside the box" and use his two stages to orbit approach. Not that this was unique: 1 2 3.

Of course, there is the Turing test which is often manifested as the Eliza challenge. I googled for a link and found this. Hmm. Maybe not the best available:

Eliza: Hello. I am ELIZA. How can I help you? Me: Maybe. Eliza: Why the uncertain tone? Me: When was your program devised and by whom? Eliza: Does that question interest you? Me: Yes. That is why I asked it. Eliza: You are sure? Me: Yes. I am sure. Eliza: You are sure? Me: Yep! Eliza: Please go on. Me: How can I when you haven't answered the question? Eliza: Does that question interest you? ...

but if you look at the "judgement criteria", it comes down to this phrase:

...it will be possible to programme computers, [...] to make them play the imitation game so well that an average interrogator will not have more than 70 percent chance of making the right identification after five minutes of questioning...

The problem with this as a judgement criteria (as opposed to an argument in discussion--No. I'm not critisising Alan Turing:), is that it is much too vague to allow for unequivocal verification.

That last critisim may seem esoteric, but if I consitantly and invariably ask "Why?", is that allowed?

How long would a "real human being" tolorate that conversation before replying something akin to "P*** off you moron!"?

So, for an X-prize challenge to be viable, it must be:

So, the point of this ramble. What do you consider would make a good candidate for a Software X-prize?

Ideally, you should supply both the specification of the challenge and the judgement criteria.

It would also be nice, if the denizens of this place permit it, if:

  1. each main (1st level) response to this thread was one such unique 'entry'.
  2. Any responses, challenges or suggested modifications to that entry would be posted subordinate to that entry.
  3. the 'creator' of that entry would take on the task of updating (without maintaining a laborious update history) that entry in the light of good (in the collectively applauded sense?) suggestions for additions/modifications/improvements to that challenge.

The idea being to refine the original idea in the light of the collective experience to produce a better definition. Each challenge posted would be a separate entity without there (necessarially) being an overall judgement upon which is the overall 'best'. To this end, I will post my favorite idea (if I ever get around to posting this post), as a reply to it.

It may be that this post will itself become subject to critism, discussion or censure, in which case, it might be better to start a spearate thread for the posting of actual challenges? Anyway, I will need time to refine my idea so, I'll post this first and see what the consensus is before posting it.


Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

In reply to X-prize software challenge? by BrowserUk

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.