4 ms·
Yes, and people don't like that. This way we'll end up with robots talking to robots using human language, which couldn't be more idiotic.
by zeusk 8y ago
Yes, and people don't like that. This way we'll end up with robots talking to robots using human language, which couldn't be more idiotic.
- fixermark 8y ago> which couldn't be more idiotic Actually, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to piggyback on the existing telecom infrastructure in a backwards-compatible way. I think you just described a stepping-stone for moving from a system where humans burn a bunch of time negotiating deals to where deals are auto-negotiated on behalf of humans without having to build out a new protocol from scratch or run a new initiative through ANSI or W3C. Neat. Beats the pants off the transition plan for IPv4 to IPv6 at least.
- zeusk 8y ago> Actually, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution to piggyback on the existing telecom infrastructure in a backwards-compatible way. > I think you just described a stepping-stone for moving from a system where humans burn a bunch of time negotiating deals to where deals are auto-negotiated on behalf of humans without having to build out a new protocol from scratch or run a new initiative through ANSI or W3C. Except for the fact that Human language is not entirely precise. We can't even implement error-free "smart" contracts in a specialized language and you think doing so in a language with so much more ambiguity using computers is a good idea?
- pythonaut_16 8y agoTo me at least, the value of something like Google Duplex would be doing things like scheduling things over the phone, i.e. things that I should already be able to do on a computer anyways.