Epstein Secrets

I lb Cir. 2003); United States'. 7illmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11* Cir. 1999); United States1 &mill, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11* Cir. 2003); United Stalest. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Burgess, 175 F.3d j261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11* Cir. 2005);

mans, such as solving integrals, they have difficulty performing commonsense tasks that are easy for humans, such as understanding stories. In this Technical Forum contribution, we discuss commonsense reasoning and what makes it difficult for computers. We contend that commonsense reasoning is too hard a proble

Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Panfll, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States it Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess,175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005);

mans, such as solving integrals, they have difficulty performing commonsense tasks that are easy for humans, such as understanding stories. In this Technical Forum contribution, we discuss commonsense reasoning and what makes it difficult for computers. We contend that commonsense reasoning is too hard a proble

ates Pang supra, 338 3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003)." " There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under Garrett, 190 3d 1220 (116 Cir. §2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 20

mans, such as solving integrals, they have difficulty performing commonsense tasks that are easy for humans, such as understanding stories. In this Technical Forum contribution, we discuss commonsense reasoning and what makes it difficult for computers. We contend that commonsense reasoning is too hard a proble