3 ms·
Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the mast
by nopinsight 2y ago
Here is the key part of my argument: in sufficient detail such that another master or a robot could create David, (implying) in the exact same style as the masterpiece, without seeing or touching the artifact itself (because that would not be just verbal language anymore).
- cableshaft 2y agoIsn't that what CNC machines do? Or even 3D modeling software, which then gets 3D printed? Is that not creating things, potentially as complicated as David, using language? I know CNC machines use G-Code. I think the only limiting factor we have on that is we don't yet have a robot that can chisel marble to create a carbon copy of such sculptures, but we can otherwise do it with other materials.
- Jensson 2y agoI doubt Michelangelo could write such a spec, but he could make David. The ability to communicate is not the same thing as the ability to do, they are separate, as people who can write such a spec probably can't make it by themselves either.
- nopinsight 2y agoIn the context of the original article in which this whole discussion takes place, I assume we are talking about verbal, natural language. Specifying every little detail would make my comments sound like legalese. To my understanding, this is not a type of natural language the paper discusses: N10 G21 ; Set units to millimeters N20 G17 ; Select XY plane N30 G90 ; Absolute positioning N40 G00 Z5.0 ; Raise Z axis to 5.0 mm
- cableshaft 2y agoI don't expect a human could recreate David with that, no. But you also included robot in your post, and a robot can use that language to recreate David. If you hadn't specified robot, then sure.