5 ms·

Sounds like science working properly. That said, from the description it’s hard to be sure how much of the new theory Hawking actually agreed with - “I read in

by Uvix 4y ago

Sounds like science working properly. That said, from the description it’s hard to be sure how much of the new theory Hawking actually agreed with - “I read into his eyes that he agreed with it” doesn’t seem like a basis for authorship.

defrost 4y ago
Which occurred well after halfway through a fully logged collaboration (as we can assume that Hawkings comms were recorded). The paraphrasing you gave over simplified: “I used to position myself in front of him and fire questions and would look into his eyes to see if he was agreeing or disagreeing. By the end, I could detect several levels of no and several levels of yes with a few in between.” Reading aloud to a collaborative partner of many years and getting eye rolls in varying directions is as valid as one grunt for yes, two for no .. it's low bandwidth but workable (just).
- Cpoll 4y ago
  Was Hawking able to eye-roll? It seems like if that were the case, a camera with some simple software (it could be ad-hoc, not general-purpose eye tracking) could overcome the problem described in the article: > Hawking switched to a sensor mounted on his glasses that could be activated by twitching a cheek muscle, but eventually even that become too difficult. > He slowed from a few words per minute to several minutes per word, Hertog said. In the end, communication stopped. With that said, I'm willing to give Hertog the benefit of the doubt in this case.
  - defrost 4y ago
    I'm inclined to believe that Hawking's eyes were on camera for lengthy periods, I'm certain that there would have been some attempt to automate an interaction there as all his other muscles failed more and more. As for Hertog, there's a number of people that can and (according to the grapevine) do vouch who have worked with them both over the past decades.
mbfg 4y ago
yeah, you could invent a nefarious story about how this went, or a misinterpretation of the story, as well as a simple accounting of what Hawkings really thought. How you decide where to draw where the truth is, isn't particularly easy.

by Uvix 4y ago

defrost 4y ago

Which occurred well after halfway through a fully logged collaboration (as we can assume that Hawkings comms were recorded). The paraphrasing you gave over simplified: “I used to position myself in front of him and fire questions and would look into his eyes to see if he was agreeing or disagreeing. By the end, I could detect several levels of no and several levels of yes with a few in between.” Reading aloud to a collaborative partner of many years and getting eye rolls in varying directions is as valid as one grunt for yes, two for no .. it's low bandwidth but workable (just).

Cpoll 4y ago
Was Hawking able to eye-roll? It seems like if that were the case, a camera with some simple software (it could be ad-hoc, not general-purpose eye tracking) could overcome the problem described in the article: > Hawking switched to a sensor mounted on his glasses that could be activated by twitching a cheek muscle, but eventually even that become too difficult. > He slowed from a few words per minute to several minutes per word, Hertog said. In the end, communication stopped. With that said, I'm willing to give Hertog the benefit of the doubt in this case.
- defrost 4y ago
  I'm inclined to believe that Hawking's eyes were on camera for lengthy periods, I'm certain that there would have been some attempt to automate an interaction there as all his other muscles failed more and more. As for Hertog, there's a number of people that can and (according to the grapevine) do vouch who have worked with them both over the past decades.

mbfg 4y ago

yeah, you could invent a nefarious story about how this went, or a misinterpretation of the story, as well as a simple accounting of what Hawkings really thought. How you decide where to draw where the truth is, isn't particularly easy.