3 ms·
There is zero ambiguity under German as law as to who was a Chancellor and who was not. Not a matter of wikipedia etc. The way to be Chancellor is through arti
by RandomLensman 3y ago
There is zero ambiguity under German as law as to who was a Chancellor and who was not. Not a matter of wikipedia etc.
The way to be Chancellor is through article 63 of the Grundgesetz, while Scheel was put into the caretaker role via article 69. This explains it a bit https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vizekanzler_(Deutschland) - Scheel was only taking on the function, not the office.
This kind of giving some machine the benefit of the doubt when in fact there is zero ambiguity is really a path that makes me think we will have mostly machines designed for marketing and other non-critical things.
- Kiro 3y agoHe's also included in this list between 4 and 5: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#Deutsche_Bundeskanzler_seit_1949 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeskanzler_(Deutschland)#De... When you need to bring up article 63 and 69 of the Grundgesetz to prove that the claim is ludicrous, maybe the reasonable thing to say instead is "I understand why you might think that".
- RandomLensman 3y agoYou can say "I consider Scheel to be Chancellor", but that isn't the same as Scheel having been a Chancellor. I honestly don't understand why in situations with a clear ground truth there is a need to debate and why we would want machines to bungle that.
- Kiro 3y agoI don't think it bungled it and I don't agree that there's a clear ground truth here. Quite the opposite: you've only convinced me that the semantic ambiguity is real. It's like debating whether interim CEOs should be included in a list of CEOs.
- RandomLensman 3y agoYou are, of course, free to ignore German law and its definitions, but that doesn't change the fact who actually was a Chancellor and who was not. Chancellor is a very well defined role.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]