A cyclist pedaling up a mountain isn't a "collaboration" between a bicycle and a human. This is the same. You don't see feral bicycles roaming the land. All models are ultimately built and run by humans, with human-provided instructions. And as with any program, it's garbage in, garbage out.

▲

TeMPOraL 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

More apt analogy here: a cyclist pushing a bicycle down the mountain and seeing it somehow get down the whole track without falling down, is not a collaboration between a bicycle and a human. The human was not involved beyond giving the initial push.

	▲	speed_spread 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Cyclist still chooses the time, mountain and direction the bicycle gets pushed in. Bicycles have no agency and only go down because gravity. Bicycle will not "discover" tree or wall, any outcome solely the result of cyclist's decisions even if thrown bicycles don't have generally deterministic paths. Don't anthropomorphize the bicycle.

▲

1attice 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The bicycle -- a simple method of transport powered entirely by humans -- used analogically to prove a point about [clears throat] automation.

I think this sounds somewhat less silly in English because "automotive" and "automative" don't have the same hyper-visible affinity, but all the same; you may want to consider the car as a more viable analogand.