4 ms·
> Now try properly aligning with an "entity" that thinks nothing like you, has a vastly different set of experiences, doesn't know how to count, and has no real
by b3morales 4y ago
> Now try properly aligning with an "entity" that thinks nothing like you, has a vastly different set of experiences, doesn't know how to count, and has no real concept of physical mechanisms (and more).
Indeed. This point was also made in a different way in the article:
> So all of that to say that it’s very, like very, difficult to describe an image with words. There are so many things that an illustrator will instinctively know how to do, that the machine would need to be told to do. Even if it was possible
It struck me how similar this was to the basic challenge of programming: computers don't have the layers upon layers of background information that humans take for granted, to be able to accept descriptions of the simplest tasks. You must explain every minute detail to them.
- godelski 4y ago> It struck me how similar this was to the basic challenge of programming Yeah, this challenge is actually fairly universal. I said this in another comment but it is worth repeating. When communicating there is: 1) what you intend to say, 2) what you say, and 3) what is heard. These don't even have to be the same thing. There's a lot of ways the miscommunication can happen but this is also why we need to act in good faith. As the speaker you need to convey the idea in your head to someone else's head. As the listener you need to try to interpret what is in someone's head through the words they say. People think language is extremely structured but there is a lot lost in between and we fill in so many gaps. Once we lose good faith communication becomes near impossible because we won't correctly fill in the gaps.
- b3morales 4y agoExcellent extension, very true!