4 ms·

Reading a bicycle doesn't teach you how to ride the thing. To do that, you actually need to ride a bike. I bet lying, deceiving, and manipulation are the same

• SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  There are books on how to do all of those things. But also, the detail with which the action is expressed in the text matters -- lies, deception, violence, etc feature in enough graphic detail to extrapolate the mechanics based on other things you know. We all did that as children, learning by examples. If a book described the sight of a person riding a bicycle -- legs pumping, hands on the bars, sitting on it, etc -- and the feel of riding a bicycle -- the burn in your thigh muscles, ache in lungs, pounding heart -- then I'd wager you'd have a pretty good idea of how to get starting riding a bicycle. And if you happened to be a supergenius athlete, who just didn't know how to ride a bike, you probably could do a reasonable job of it on your first go based on my shitty description alone. That's the problem with trying to hide these ideas -- they're not actually very complicated and even moderate descriptions suffice to suss out the mechanics if you understand basic facts about the world. For something like lying -- if you read all of classical literature, you would have a master degree in lies and their societal uses.
• TeMPOraL 9y ago
  That's only because humans suck at consciously simulating things in their head. A well made AI should have no problem forking off a physics sandbox in its "head" to simulate a bicycle it only read about, or to run state-of-the-art ML on the accumulated observations about how humans interact with each other.