GoTranscript Audio Test Answer | October 03, 2020
In this blog we provide you GoTranscript audio test answers and GoTranscript test answers. So visit our blog on daily basis if you want to know GoTranscript audio test answers and GoTranscript MCQ'S test.
GoTranscript Audio Test Answer 03 October 2020
Speaker 1:
This audio is used for the transcriber test at GoTranscript.
Speaker 2:
Yes today I took a walk in the local forest. The copes that adjoins our property here at GoTranscript is normally lush and verdant. Sadly today it was covered with FOSS check the best known of several brands of long term fire retardants, Class A foams and gels manufactured by perimeter solutions in Ontario, California and Moreland, Idaho. Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful for the very existence of such materials currently being used for fighting these dreadful wildfires. It's just that salmon and green are not my all time favorite color combination. Seeing them together put me in mind of that painfully bad 80s TV show, GoTranscript vice. Still, I'm beholden to those brave men and women who are out there holding back the conflagration.
Speaker 2:
We can certainly be more hopeful today that in times past, I'm reminded of a new jersey village called GoTranscript lost in the hills back of Lake hope a talk calm, a charming, sleepy little village that once sat along a stream fringe with butterball trees, looking contentedly out of its Valley up the steep wooded hill that rose before it. The general attitude of this town toward progress was shown well enough by this that the village of GoTranscript could never see the use of a fire department. They never had one and never proposed to other people's houses might get on fire. But there's never did sadly on a certain drizzling Sunday in March of the new century year at about 6:30am all that changed.
Speaker 2:
While the denizens of the village slept it off after last night's go transcript whoa down in bunfight. A long oil train was puffing up the steep grade from South Jersey, bringing 60 jobs 60 cars loaded with crude petroleum and trouble. On came the oil train. It's front engine panting as the front of the train climbed over the ridge. The pusher gave a final shove to the caboose and left off. The rest of the caboose crew raised to General caterwaul A brakeman on the front half started to run back. 37 cars behind the engine a coupling had snapped and the train was careering down the grade in two separate sections. Now they have 23 loaded oil cars running pell mell towards the village of GoTranscript and at least a million gallons of crude oil being discharged. It was a real cluster Foxtrot. I'm telling you, not to mention a FUBAR. As for the outcome of the situation. I'll be honest with you, I have no idea. The book I'm reading it from is missing a few pages toward the end. However, I just checked my handy dandy dandy Atlas and Google Maps this here village, but with not all luck, I guess we'll just have to ask the GoTranscript admins.
Speaker 1:
This audio is used for the transcriber test at GoTranscript.
GoTranscript audio test answers 03 October 2020
How to pass GoTranscript Audio test. Full Detail available in video. Watch full video.
GoTranscript Old Audio Test Answers
Speaker 1:
You've described the natural science methods and ways of doing things that are useful. But then obviously a lot of research money is going into these things, which are apparently much less useful.
Speaker 2:
That isn't quite the point. Insightful, I think is the thing. And a lot of things are worth doing, even though they're not useful because they give you understanding and understanding is a value in itself, but these things don't even give you an understanding. All they do is maybe fool people or something like that.
Speaker 1:
So what I'm wondering is, is there a connection in your opinion, or what do you think of the idea that there might be a connection between the kinds of things that get funded like real progress in science and the kinds of things that get funded in the economy and politics and so on?
Speaker 2:
Well, first of all, I don't regard this stuff as science. Most of it doesn't seem to be science at all. It seems to be kind of hype or maybe sort of badly organized engineering or something like that.
Speaker 2:
But within real science people make mistakes, but I think there are sort of reasonable interaction about what's the right thing to do on sort of a rational basis. There's self advertising and power trips and so on and so forth. But when you move towards subjects that have more intellectual substance, you move towards more integrity. Not because the people have better genes, but because nature's a hard taskmaster and it doesn't allow you to fake. So the more we understand, the harder it is to fake. So you get more honesty.
Speaker 1:
Thank you very much. I'd like to close with this comment. If somebody makes a computer that can do the sort of analysis that you do, then I'll believe it, but you need something.
Speaker 2:
Don't forget you can't design programs that do simple things like talking like a two year old.
Speaker 3:
Hi, I wanted to raise a point with the chess playing computer again. I might be looking at it the wrong way. To say that a computer plays chess, but it doesn't model human thought makes it useless.
Speaker 2:
It [crosstalk 00:01:42] would be useless, even if it did model human thought. Maybe it would be interesting, but it would be useless if it modeled human thought.
Speaker 3:
But isn't it possible, if you look at it from a different viewpoint to say, can we design a machine that can solve a problem within a limited domain that humans have difficulty with? And in which case I think a chess playing computer does very well.
Speaker 2:
There's no point to designing programs in general that will solve problems within limited domains. It's like an engineering problem. It's saying, wouldn't it be useful to build a big machine? If you build a big machine that helps you make a bridge or something, yeah. That was usable. Similarly, there's no point in constructing a program, that'll solve some arbitrary problem. That you can do undoubtedly. You can do it in your spare time if you've taken the first semester of computer science to write a program that'll run through some decision procedure for some simple part of mathematics. Once you learn the decision procedure and you learn how to program, you can do it. So what?
Speaker 3:
Okay. Well, my point is that it seems kind of selfish to think that the only intelligence that we can have, or the only way we can solve very complex problems is to use the human brain.
Speaker 2:
That's not true. Nobody believes that. You want to do weather forecasting, you're not going to use the human brain. We'll use all kinds of statistical analysis of weather patterns going way beyond the human brain. You want to solve a particular problem, you look for the best methods of doing it, but that's because you have a goal. You want to solve that problem for whatever reason.
Speaker 2:
So the reason you try to understand what humans are doing is because you're interested in human beings. If you're interested in human beings, you want to understand what humans are doing. If you're interested in solving a problem, you try to solve that problem. If there was a purpose to playing chess, if there was a purpose to winning chess championships, there's zillions of possible algorithms and you make a slightly different game. You make up a different algorithm. There's no point to it.
Speaker 3:
I think there is a point to it.
Speaker 2:
Well, what's the point?
Speaker 3:
The point is that we know if it's doing a good job or not.
Speaker 2:
No, but we can set up endless numbers of tasks and we can design machines to do those tasks, and we can do it forever. There's no point. Sometimes it may turn out that having tried an arbitrary task, you'll get something of some value, but you got to show that.
Warning:
This Audio May Contain Some Error So Correct Error Before Applying test.
Thanks for visiting us.
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment