3 ms·

A model is not required to get everything right. I found those deductions absolutely amazing honestly.

by im3w1l 4y ago

mdp2021 4y ago
It depends on your goal. "Given the acquired studies in astronomy and rocket science, engineering and robotics, surely we can plan a mission to explore the solar corona in-place, which we calculated as safe and achievable, provided we limit the physical environmental constraints by carrying the mission on rigorously at nighttime" Maybe you are into entertainment, maybe you are into AI (AKA "automated problem solving"). Maybe the appearance of some emergent property leads to potential foundations, maybe just to potential for deception. It is very dangerous to have around hollow simulacra "good at faking it" (from pseudo-professionalism to populism, etc).
- K0balt 4y ago
  Is this an actual generated response? Because if it is it’s actually amazing, a genuine creative solution to a difficult problem, albeit one that fails to understand how night and day work.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > Is this an actual generated response? Because if it is it’s actually amazing, a genuine creative solution to a difficult problem, albeit one that fails to understand how night and day work No. Of course it a joke I constructed to show that "«deductions»" do not exclude that the deducer is a moron. And to suggest that morons will be dangerous (I cannot write 'can': it is 'will'), because cognitive failures may be more concealed than ideas about "the temperature of the Sun in the night". The constructed sentence is not just «fail[ing] to understand how night and day work»: it would show a failure to understand how the whole system works, a failure in the whole world model, which reveals to be either as shallow as a one-molecule layer or as inconsistent as a post-hand-granade deflagration. And that is why I wrote «entertainment», because such cognitive failures are the basis of jokes as the intellectual equivalent of slapstick, and I opposed it to «AI (AKA "automated problem solving")», because when you are engineering a problem solvers, you do need those automated solutions to be sound, and surely not unintentionally treacherous! I get it that appearances can be "«amazing»" - as both posters label -, meaning stupefying, inducing that temporary confusion as the intellect is suddenly baffled and maybe lured into deceit by comforting emotional instances, but as the confusion dissipates and you see things as they are, as duly, you are back to the actually important state, in which "humorously amazing" and "amazing with worth" are quite distinct.

A model is not required to get everything right. I found those deductions absolutely amazing honestly.

by im3w1l 4y ago

A model is not required to get everything right. I found those deductions absolutely amazing honestly.

mdp2021 4y ago

It depends on your goal. "Given the acquired studies in astronomy and rocket science, engineering and robotics, surely we can plan a mission to explore the solar corona in-place, which we calculated as safe and achievable, provided we limit the physical environmental constraints by carrying the mission on rigorously at nighttime" Maybe you are into entertainment, maybe you are into AI (AKA "automated problem solving"). Maybe the appearance of some emergent property leads to potential foundations, maybe just to potential for deception. It is very dangerous to have around hollow simulacra "good at faking it" (from pseudo-professionalism to populism, etc).

K0balt 4y ago
Is this an actual generated response? Because if it is it’s actually amazing, a genuine creative solution to a difficult problem, albeit one that fails to understand how night and day work.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > Is this an actual generated response? Because if it is it’s actually amazing, a genuine creative solution to a difficult problem, albeit one that fails to understand how night and day work No. Of course it a joke I constructed to show that "«deductions»" do not exclude that the deducer is a moron. And to suggest that morons will be dangerous (I cannot write 'can': it is 'will'), because cognitive failures may be more concealed than ideas about "the temperature of the Sun in the night". The constructed sentence is not just «fail[ing] to understand how night and day work»: it would show a failure to understand how the whole system works, a failure in the whole world model, which reveals to be either as shallow as a one-molecule layer or as inconsistent as a post-hand-granade deflagration. And that is why I wrote «entertainment», because such cognitive failures are the basis of jokes as the intellectual equivalent of slapstick, and I opposed it to «AI (AKA "automated problem solving")», because when you are engineering a problem solvers, you do need those automated solutions to be sound, and surely not unintentionally treacherous! I get it that appearances can be "«amazing»" - as both posters label -, meaning stupefying, inducing that temporary confusion as the intellect is suddenly baffled and maybe lured into deceit by comforting emotional instances, but as the confusion dissipates and you see things as they are, as duly, you are back to the actually important state, in which "humorously amazing" and "amazing with worth" are quite distinct.