Though the bridgebuilder must have intimate knowledge about the conditions of the river—its width, depth, flow rate, flood patterns, etc. Plus the bridge's intended use case—walking or driving across, how many at a time, the material support limits, and so on.
This has to be separated from the impact of AI. We could say, “What does it mean to cross a river? Bridge builders have not really considered the nature of this thing “bridge” that can be a fallen tree or a suspension bridge.” Interesting, but the cars roll on.https://twitter.com/mfckr_/status/1001781226641002496 …
-
-
-
Putting all that into perspective, it strikes me that the bridgebuilder has indeed considered the nature of 'bridges' and what it means to cross them.
-
As for 'AI'… whatever contrivances we rollout under that buzzword will certainly do some interesting things—some helpful, some heinous. But it doesn't appear they'll ever measure up to the operative goals AI researchers long aspired for (i.e. a synthetic sentience).
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.