<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>My dog chuckled when I told her about this... <br>
</p>
<p>... or maybe she just yawned...<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:009d01d664ff$5236f5e0$f6a4e1a0$@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.quotation, li.quotation, div.quotation
{mso-style-name:quotation;
mso-style-link:"quotation Char";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.quotationChar
{mso-style-name:"quotation Char";
mso-style-link:quotation;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
font-weight:bold;
font-style:italic;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">And then I forgot to change the subject
line. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clark University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi, Frank,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Damn! I forgot to change the thread! </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><o:p> </o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i>You wrote</i></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="quotation">One of the questions on my PhD qualifying
exam was to defend or deny Marvin Minsky's claim that a brain
is just a computer made of meat. I chose to do the latter and
argued in a vein similar to Doug's comments.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i> <o:p></o:p></i></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Can I make meat out of silicon? This
argument just seems to buck the argument down a few levels.
When will we know that Beyond Meat has finally come up with
the Silicon Burger?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Doug, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I changed the subject line to head off
accusations of dragging this lofty discussion into my nasty,
fetid den.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="quotation">dog is highly interconnected - hormones,
nerves, senses, and environment. neurons are not binary .
every synapse is an infinite state variable. <span
style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These points might serve as an explanation
for why dogs can and computers cannot exhibit joy – but only
once we had agreed, up front, what it would be for a computer
to exhibit joy. For my part, I guess, I would say that to
exhibit joy, a computer would have to be “embodied” – i.e., be
a robot acting in an environment, probably a social
environment – and that robot would have to behave joyously.
Or perhaps it could instruct an icon, in a screen environment,
to behavior joyously. But I assume any one of a dozen of the
people on this list could design such a robot, or icon, once
you and I had done the hard work of defining “joyous.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Programmers do this with games, etc., all
the time. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Heider and Simmel did it with a time-lapse
camera and a few felt icons on a glass draft deflector.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lee Rudolph, if he is still amongst us, can
send you a program in netlogo where an icon exhibits joy. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Following early Tolman here. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">N<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clark University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <<a
href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>doug carmichael<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 28, 2020 9:20 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam@redfish.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] GPT-3 and the chinese room<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">dog is highly
interconnected - hormones, nerves, senses, and environment.
neurons are not binary . every synapse is an infinite state
variable. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">doug<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">On Jul 27,
2020, at 10:45 PM, <a
href="mailto:thompnickson2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">thompnickson2@gmail.com</a>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Doug, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dog do joy; why not computers? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">n<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Nicholas Thompson<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Emeritus Professor of Ethology and
Psychology<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Clark University<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="mailto:ThompNickSon2@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">ThompNickSon2@gmail.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span style="color:#0563C1">https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/</span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Friam <<a
href="mailto:friam-bounces@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam-bounces@redfish.com</a>>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>doug carmichael<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 27, 2020 9:54 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group <<a href="mailto:friam@redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">friam@redfish.com</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [FRIAM] GPT-3 and the chinese room<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I imagine playing chess, or go, with a
computer. As I play I have a very enlivening experience of
playing. The computer seems to have no such thing. For
me, in my engagement, “Every neuron is listening to the
mutter of the crowd.” Jerry Lettvin, MIT. If The
computer goes on to win it has nothing like the experience
of winning. it just stops. I can’t imagine a computer
saying, except by playing a pre recorded sound file,
“that is disgusting.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Jul 27, 2020, at 8:12 PM,
Frank Wimberly <<a
href="mailto:wimberly3@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">wimberly3@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Smart
computer (program). Nick, is the behaviorist
position that if it behaves as though it thinks
than it thinks?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">---<br>
Frank C. Wimberly<br>
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, <br>
Santa Fe, NM 87505<br>
<br>
505 670-9918<br>
Santa Fe, NM<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jul 27, 2020, 8:28
PM Alexander Rasmus <<a
href="mailto:alex.m.rasmus@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">alex.m.rasmus@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There's also a lot of
stuff that isn't poetry. He generates
Dwarf Fortress patch notes in the Misc
section. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There's even a section
where GPT-3 argues that it doesn't really
understand anything (bold at the start is
a shortened version of the prompt):<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">"<strong><span
style="font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">AI
will never be able to truly</span></strong>
think for themselves, to have
consciousness, to feel any of the richness
and complexity of the world that we mere
humans can feel. Mere, unenlightened
humans might be impressed by the abilities
of simple deep learning programs, but when
looked at in a more holistic manner, it
all adds up to… well, nothing. They still
don’t exhibit any trace of consciousness.
All of the available data support the
notion that humans feel and experience the
world differently than computers do. While
a computer can beat a human master at
chess or Go or some other game of
structured rules, it will never be able to
truly think outside of those rules, it
will never be able to come up with its own
new strategies on the fly, it will never
be able to feel, to react, the way a human
can. Artificial intelligence programs lack
consciousness and self-awareness. They
will never be able to have a sense of
humor. They will never be able to
appreciate art, or beauty, or love. They
will never feel lonely. They will never
have empathy for other people, for
animals, for the environment. They will
never enjoy music or fall in love, or cry
at the drop of a hat. Merely by existing,
mere, unenlightened humans are
intellectually superior to computers, no
matter how good our computers get at
winning games like Go or Jeopardy. We
don’t live by the rules of those games.
Our minds are much, much bigger than that.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Compared to the awesome
power of the human intellect, it’s obvious
that computers are just dense
electrochemical machines with intricate
wiring. And while one day we might develop
smarter (though still soulless) computers
that surpass the human intellect in the
games mentioned above, it will just end up
being some more sophisticated way of doing
the same thing. Even if it’s more
efficient than our brains at doing complex
mathematical operations, it will remain
entirely in the dark about what it all
means. Mindless processing power alone is
not the answer to our existential
questions. So, in the end, we don’t need
to create another HAL 9000, or Skynet, or
some evil global intelligent network of
computers that rule the world and try to
exterminate humanity as we become
obsolete, which is a pretty cool subplot
for a future Terminator movie. We don’t
need any of that. We’re humans, and we are
already intellectually superior to
machines. End of story.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">To be sure, I’m not
denying that there are hard problems in
AI. Of course, there are. All of these so
called “advances” in this field are a
bunch of crap if we still don’t have a
program that can putt around on a
miniaturized golf course all by itself,
let alone actually play a decent game of
golf like the humans do, without going
into meltdown if it misses the hole five
out of six times in a row. Can we get a
movie about that? If you ask me, we don’t
even really know how to define
intelligence yet. How does it work,
exactly? It’s a mess, really. If we’re
ever going to create another actual HAL
9000, or yet another Skynet (what fun),
we’d better be all on the same page when
it comes to AI: what intelligence is, how
it works, what consciousness is, what it
feels like, what it really means to be
self-aware. Without that common framework,
trying to program yet another AI that can
play yet another game like Go is like
trying to blow up another Death Star with
yet another way-too-large superlaser.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think one of the big
mistakes that computer scientists are
making is that they are conflating
intelligence with problem-solving. They’ve
gotten into this habit of creating
intricate Turing test competitions: give
the computer a series of math problems, a
chess board, etc., etc., give it a chat
interface so you can interact with it like
you would with another human being, and
then see if the machine can fool you into
thinking that it is a human. Once it does
this, computers will have passed the
Turing test and achieved general AI.
Really? Is that really the way it works? I
don’t see how. A computer has succeeded in
faking it until it makes it, in terms of
passing a Turing test competition, only if
it has satisfied some pre-specified set of
conditions that we know to be what a human
would do in the same situation. But that
is no guarantee that it has actually
achieved intelligence! For all we know,
computers can imitate humans until they
generate the most plausible patterns of
thought and behavior we know of, while all
along remaining as soulless as ever. Who’s
to say that the computer doesn’t merely
use its programming to cheat the test?
Who’s to say that it isn’t just shuffling
its data around in an effort to do the
most computations possible with the least
amount of effort? It may succeed in
conning us into thinking that it is
self-aware, but that doesn’t prove that it
actually is. It hasn’t actually passed the
Turing test, unless we have defined it in
a way that pre-determines the outcome:
i.e., if the human pretends to be a
computer, then it passes the test, but if
the computer pretends to be a human, then
it doesn’t pass the test! To me, that just
doesn’t sound all that scientific."<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Rasmus<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at
8:04 PM glen <<a
href="mailto:gepropella@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">gepropella@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Excellent. Thanks! I'd
seen the link to Gwern from Slate Star
Codex. But I loathe poetry. Now that
you've recommended it, I have no choice.
8^)<br>
<br>
On July 27, 2020 6:32:15 PM PDT, Alexander
Rasmus <<a
href="mailto:alex.m.rasmus@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">alex.m.rasmus@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>Glen,<br>
><br>
>Gwern has an extensive post on GPT-3
poetry experimentation here:<br>
><a href="https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3</a><br>
><br>
>I strongly recommend the section on
the Cyberiad, where GPT-3 stands in<br>
>for<br>
>Trurl's Electronic Bard:<br>
><a
href="https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#stanislaw-lems-cyberiad"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.gwern.net/GPT-3#stanislaw-lems-cyberiad</a><br>
><br>
>There's some discussion of fine tuning
input, but I think more cases<br>
>where<br>
>they keep the prompt fixed and show
several different outputs.<br>
<br>
-- <br>
glen<br>
<br>
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-.
.... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a
href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- .... . -..-. . -. -..
-..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a
href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-.
.. ... -..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 <a
href="http://bit.ly/virtualfriam"
moz-do-not-send="true">bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
un/subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a
href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a
href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ...
-..-. .... . .-. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam<br>
un/subscribe <a
href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
archives: <a href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
archives: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/">http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>