| |
| ▲ | handoflixue 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > They are necessarily behind the status quo. That seems like a really bizarre way to describe a tool that solved an open Millennium Prize Problem. They are, empirically and repeatedly, ahead of the status quo. So if your argument depends on them being behind the status quo, reality has already disproven it multiple times over. | | |
| ▲ | mitxela 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I wasn't aware a dictionary definition solved a Millennium Prize problem. Which one and how? |
| |
| ▲ | infinite_spin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Those are distillations of existing knowledge. Definitions are "formal statements of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc" (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/definition) > They are necessarily behind the status quo. The existing state or condition would be what is written in the dictionary, not whatever personal definitions you've constructed. > "You can't call this newfangled contraption a computer, because a computer is a person!" Seems like a straw man. A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions. | | |
| ▲ | quicklime an hour ago | parent [-] | | > A computer is not a mammal, no matter how much you twist a set of definitions. I’m not the person you replied to, but I believe they’re referring to the occupation of “computer”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) So yes, at one time all computers were mammals. The people who write dictionaries generally take a descriptivist approach, that’s why slang terms enter the dictionary after they start to become popular. The state of the art of human knowledge would be another step ahead of the common use of any language. | | |
| ▲ | infinite_spin an hour ago | parent [-] | | That's an interesting take, and I can see how "computer" could refer to a human a hundred years ago, but they also mentioned "status quo", which should indicate that a reasonable person should use a modern definition. | | |
| ▲ | mitxela 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Imagine you're the first one to invent a digital electronic computer. You call it a computer, and I go on Tinkerer News and post (by carrier pigeon) "ummm akshully computers are people????" - which one of us would be adding value and which one subtracting it? | |
| ▲ | quicklime an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Again I’m not the person who wrote the comment, but I think they were exaggerating for effect and maybe lost the audience in doing so. While “computer” has meant the same thing for many decades now, the term “intelligence” really does seem like a moving goalpost? | | |
| ▲ | infinite_spin 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think it's only a moving goalpost if you can show that the goalpost has moved with a new definition that fits our current usage of it. The people saying "this isn't intelligence", and then claim "we don't even know what intelligence is", are encouraged to offer such a definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
