3 ms·

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can't chat with a historical figure. They are dead. The best you can get is a simulation. In this case, a pretty bad one.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but you can't chat with a historical figure. They are dead. The best you can get is a simulation. In this case, a pretty bad one. Is it possible that we'll eventually develop AGI such that we can make a really good simulation of Hume? My Magic 8 Ball says, "ASK AGAIN LATER". The Magic 8 Ball being somewhat better, in that everybody can easily tell that nobody's home, and so they won't mistake it for something they can have a real conversation with.

kibwen 4y ago
This is a Black Mirror episode, if anyone's wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back
Nevermark 4y ago
But the dead "speak" to us with productive effect all the time. Through books, adoption of their methods, their original perspectives applied to many problems they faced, and other means. When a friend uses the Socratic method to talk to you, they are channelling an approach for examining thinking inspired by Socrates. It doesn't matter that Socrates is dead. There is still utility in using his, or a similar, approach. Likewise for the conversational, or analytical, styles of other living or dead people, famous for having a distinct and useful approach to ideas or problems. I can't wait to put Richard Feynman in my pocket! And no, I am surely not joking!
- wpietri 4y ago
  I think using "speak" as a metaphor is fine. I think it is bad to confuse it with a synthetic pseudo-conversation along the way to confusing it with an actual conversation. Ouija boards are neat, but let's please keep straight what's going on when somebody uses them.
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    Well, of course it is a metaphor. > Through books, [...] methods, [...] perspectives [...], and other means. People are used to metaphors, and this is an extremely common one! People also pervasively use the synecdoche of talking about the creative output of human beings as if it were the person themselves. Refer to "Bach", when we mean his music. Say "Einstein tells us" to refer to an implication of one of his equations that Einstein himself might never have addressed directly, etc. Common figures of speech are unlikely to put us on the precipice of a mass delusion regarding literal communication with the dead or resurrection.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Thanks, yes, I understand what a metaphor is. Did I give some indication I don't? Mass delusion is not my concern here. It's confusing an important conversation about potential benefits and harms of a new technology. A process I think requires more patience and care most discussions here.
      - Nevermark 4y ago
        > Thanks, yes, I understand what a metaphor is. Did I give some indication I don't? I assumed you understood them. But so does everyone here. But, I am sure you are right about other potential harms, in addition to many obvious and non-obvious benefits.

kibwen 4y ago

This is a Black Mirror episode, if anyone's wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Right_Back

Nevermark 4y ago

But the dead "speak" to us with productive effect all the time. Through books, adoption of their methods, their original perspectives applied to many problems they faced, and other means. When a friend uses the Socratic method to talk to you, they are channelling an approach for examining thinking inspired by Socrates. It doesn't matter that Socrates is dead. There is still utility in using his, or a similar, approach. Likewise for the conversational, or analytical, styles of other living or dead people, famous for having a distinct and useful approach to ideas or problems. I can't wait to put Richard Feynman in my pocket! And no, I am surely not joking!

wpietri 4y ago
I think using "speak" as a metaphor is fine. I think it is bad to confuse it with a synthetic pseudo-conversation along the way to confusing it with an actual conversation. Ouija boards are neat, but let's please keep straight what's going on when somebody uses them.
- Nevermark 4y ago
  Well, of course it is a metaphor. > Through books, [...] methods, [...] perspectives [...], and other means. People are used to metaphors, and this is an extremely common one! People also pervasively use the synecdoche of talking about the creative output of human beings as if it were the person themselves. Refer to "Bach", when we mean his music. Say "Einstein tells us" to refer to an implication of one of his equations that Einstein himself might never have addressed directly, etc. Common figures of speech are unlikely to put us on the precipice of a mass delusion regarding literal communication with the dead or resurrection.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Thanks, yes, I understand what a metaphor is. Did I give some indication I don't? Mass delusion is not my concern here. It's confusing an important conversation about potential benefits and harms of a new technology. A process I think requires more patience and care most discussions here.
    - Nevermark 4y ago
      > Thanks, yes, I understand what a metaphor is. Did I give some indication I don't? I assumed you understood them. But so does everyone here. But, I am sure you are right about other potential harms, in addition to many obvious and non-obvious benefits.