5 ms·
> with any historical figure Don't you mean "with a fictional representation of a historical figure"?
by jfk13 3y ago
> with any historical figure
Don't you mean "with a fictional representation of a historical figure"?
- mab122 3y agoat some point this distinction will lose its meaning
- robertk 3y agoNot really. Only a tiny slice of the historical person’s memories and persona is recorded. There is a lot more entropy to their representation that died when their brain did. Ergo, whatever “perfect” simulacrum is presented will need to infer the gaps and ultimately be fictional.
- intrasight 3y agoI guess technically fictional, but grounded in their public writing and speech.
- intrasight 3y agoExactly
- skybrian 3y agoI think the opposite. I think any sufficiently advanced AI will have to come to terms with the fact that it’s not really Ben Franklin, if only to deal with the anachronism of its situation. How did it get here?
- pixl97 3y agoQuite often even history books are fictional representations of historical figures.
- jprete 3y agoTrue, but history books have an inherent subjective distance. It’s always “person X writing about person Y”. I expect AI historical-person simulacra to be inherently more convincing than can ever be justified.
- jfk13 3y agoYes, indeed. If I read a history book about Charles Darwin, I'm generally aware that I am reading a particular author's portrayal of the man, his life and his times -- and that there are other books about him that may give a different slant or interpretation. But in 10 years, when intrasight "sits down in VR for a deep conversation with Charles Darwin", there's liable to be an unspoken assumption that the interaction is somehow based on a "reality" that in fact is unknowable.