3 ms·
That is a pretty obtuse reference to use without explanation. It’s also an odd choice because it feels weird to call an AI a “who”. Despite AI replacing some h
by bdowling 6y ago
That is a pretty obtuse reference to use without explanation.
It’s also an odd choice because it feels weird to call an AI a “who”. Despite AI replacing some human tasks, as with the camera operator here, the technology is not at all what we would consider a person.
- oarabbus_ 6y agoWell, it's a very, very famous book.
- fortran77 6y agoObtuse? It was even made into an opera, among other things. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-xpm-2012-jun-17-la-et-long-beach-opera-review-20120618-story.html https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-xpm-2012-jun-1...
- Enginerrrd 6y agoNot really. I got it instantly and I've never even read the book.
- LeonB 6y agoI understood the reference, but still felt irritated by the word "who".
- codeulike 6y agoIts a really famous book. And that particular story is about Visual Agnosia so its kind of apt.
- Igelau 6y agoWhen do we call it a "who"? Where is the line? Sometimes I don't go down an aisle if I see the spill monitoring robot in my local grocery store. I think it's annoying, slow, dimwitted, and I can't communicate with it. Sometimes as a joke I'll even stare it in the camera and say "Your mother was a toaster!" Where is the line where I'm no longer just a crazy person, but also a racist?
- hanoz 6y ago> That is a pretty obtuse reference to use without explanation. It’s also an odd choice because it feels weird to call an AI a “who”. The slight incongruity of the word "who" is the explanation, or at least hint, that there is an unspoken reference in play.