@Meaningness @niftierideology I guess I don't share your conviction that language will not ultimately be amenable to "rocket-bricking"
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman@niftierideology Well… we can’t be sure either way, because we don’t know enough about either human intelligence or >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@admittedlyhuman@niftierideology > what sorts of algorithms may be devised in the future.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@admittedlyhuman@niftierideology While acknowledging that there must be great uncertainty both ways, burden of proof seems to be on those >1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@admittedlyhuman@niftierideology > who think brute force will do the job.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@niftierideology man, this is not brute force! you're trying to frame it as a sort of meta-brute force, but that's reductionist2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@Meaningness@niftierideology I'm not sure there are any algorithms that couldn't be sneered at as brute force by a dedicated reductionist1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman@niftierideology I don’t understand how you are using “reductionist” here?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@niftierideology you're saying there's nothing to the algorithm except all the things it has1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@Meaningness@niftierideology which is true as far as it goes but it glosses over all the things it has1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@admittedlyhuman I’m suggesting that it probably didn’t even use what it has. (I can’t be sure of this, since I can’t even read the paper!)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.