4 ms·

I would say they show at least "signs" of creativity and understanding.

mdp2021 4y ago
Entrails of birds (used in old civilizations) could show «"signs"» of future events, but that can happen to be restricted to the perception of the reader.
- ben_w 4y ago
  If it looks creative but is secretly formulaic, how is that going to avoid causing problems for the employment prospects in "creative" jobs? It doesn't matter if the thing a submarine does is "swimming", after all.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > matter if the thing a submarine does is "swimming" We are supposed to want the submarine to swim well.
    - ben_w 4y ago
      It's a reference to a famous quotation: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32629-the-question-of-whether-a-computer-can-think-is-no https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32629-the-question-of-wheth...
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        Yes, of course it is Dijkstra. The image is part of the speech "The threats to computing science" in 1984 - https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... In context: Dijkstra noted that IT discipline had strong regional tints, enabled by some "«malleability»" (over which the particularizing forces are applied). This "malleability" follows very fuzzy definitions of purpose, which he exemplified through a von Neumann that resembled medieval scholastic philosophers and an Alan Turing that proposed (to the judgement of Dijkstra) "irrelevant" perspectives in the same direction, such as "whether submarines swim" (for "whether computers think"). Now: the context instead of this branch of discussion is about those "signs" noted by OP, which I note are overwhelmed by evidence that those signs are doubtful. The point is not in the vague metaphors that Dijkstra found confusing, but in the opposite flat matter that "whether it swims or it "submarines" [as a verb], it has to do it properly". Which is not in Dijkstra, because he was speaking of something else.

mdp2021 4y ago

Entrails of birds (used in old civilizations) could show «"signs"» of future events, but that can happen to be restricted to the perception of the reader.

ben_w 4y ago
If it looks creative but is secretly formulaic, how is that going to avoid causing problems for the employment prospects in "creative" jobs? It doesn't matter if the thing a submarine does is "swimming", after all.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > matter if the thing a submarine does is "swimming" We are supposed to want the submarine to swim well.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    It's a reference to a famous quotation: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32629-the-question-of-whether-a-computer-can-think-is-no https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/32629-the-question-of-wheth...
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Yes, of course it is Dijkstra. The image is part of the speech "The threats to computing science" in 1984 - https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD898.html https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/E... In context: Dijkstra noted that IT discipline had strong regional tints, enabled by some "«malleability»" (over which the particularizing forces are applied). This "malleability" follows very fuzzy definitions of purpose, which he exemplified through a von Neumann that resembled medieval scholastic philosophers and an Alan Turing that proposed (to the judgement of Dijkstra) "irrelevant" perspectives in the same direction, such as "whether submarines swim" (for "whether computers think"). Now: the context instead of this branch of discussion is about those "signs" noted by OP, which I note are overwhelmed by evidence that those signs are doubtful. The point is not in the vague metaphors that Dijkstra found confusing, but in the opposite flat matter that "whether it swims or it "submarines" [as a verb], it has to do it properly". Which is not in Dijkstra, because he was speaking of something else.