water can’t be covered in water.
This seems very… arbitrary.
What if you used food coloring? You could have some red water, and if poured carefully, and before it diffused, you could “cover” it in blue water. Certainly, there’d be no way to get to the red water without first touching the blue bits, which feels a lot like being covered by them.
Possibly. Some do, I’m sure.
I see a lot of people try to answer brainteaser questions like this as if they can be driven down to some scientific ultimatum, but science can’t answer questions of philosophy. “Wet” is something we made up. A towel doesn’t care if it’s “damp” or not. How could it?
See my other comment if you want a link to a fun Vsauce video.
If you drive down far enough, I don’t think “wet” even remains to be a property something can have. As was mentioned, what is wetness to an individual molecule? It must be surrounded? Are all molecules “wet” with air, then?
“Wet” as a concept I think is really only useful to people communicating to each other what to expect. For instance, if I asked what was in the fridge, and you said “nothing”, it would be weird if I came to correct you: “duh, actually, there is a speck of dust in the corner. And not only that, it’s actually completely full! Of air.” This is because what you meant was, “to eat.”
A “wet” towel will feel damp and watery to a person picking it up in a way almost indistinguishable from water itself, and this is enough to say that both are wet. But, if I had spilled water, and you wanted to know how many things had gotten wet—well, these are a different set of expectations, and so maybe I wouldn’t count the water.
#1 doesn’t have anything to do with liking it, though, that’s just… knowing what it is. I know what it is, and I dislike it. Like a bad movie, it’s really easy to do.
It will make it easier for them to claw AI technology for themselves
Okay, but why do we want it? What does it do for us? So what if only corporations have it: it sucks.
Do you remember bitcoin and NFTs? Those didn’t pan out very well. They were solutions looking for problems. What is it about AI that I should be excited about?
I’m implying it’s undesirable.
some tools are force multipliers in that action, and thus useful in that case.
Sure. And removing those force multipliers from play can affect the state of the game.
When we get enough hammer murders, then we can talk about restricting hammer use.
How… does… AI… solve the problems of corporate AI? What is the strategy?
And some tools are bad to use. People generally don’t like death.
Awww :')
Oh, don’t get the wrong idea! I just need it to intimidate people.
Ohh, okay. Gotcha.
False alarm, everybody! I have it on good authority from Ji Fu that nothing is getting worse and there’s no cause for concern here. This is just any average Tuesday. Thanks, Ji Fu! Really appreciate you looking out for us.
Weapons are tools. They are tools engineered for death.
No, a hammer is useful.
An ethical, open-source alternative is going to usurp google gemini? What are you talking about?
Edit: TL;DR: You can’t just weasel your way into a position where “AI is all the bad stuff and machine learning is all the good stuff” under the guise of linguistic relativism.
You can, actually, because the inverse is exactly what marketers are vying for: AI, a term with immense baggage, is easier for layman to recognize, and implies a hell of a lot more than it actually does. It is intentionally leaning on the very cool futurism of AI to sell itself as the next evolutionary stage of human society—and so, has consumed all conversation about AI entirely. It is Hannibal Lecter wearing the skin of decades of sci-fi movies.
“Machine learning” is not a term used by sycophants (as often), and so infers different things about the person saying it. For one, they may have actually seen a college with their eyes.
So, you seem to be implying their isn’t a difference, but there is: people who suck say one, people who don’t say the other. No amount of academic rigor can sidestep this problem.
I listen to him~ but only through the little speaker I’ve hidden in his wallet
Oh, hey! I know Paranoia Agent! I need to start that one over; I never finished it.
Except they didn’t, actually. They saved time by not having to find them.
I’m sure they’re not an asshole, but they’re not considerate, either.
While I agree that water is wet in general, I don’t think this is a complete question. It’s somewhat difficult to answer because I don’t know what the person asking’s expectations are.
Water is wet if we’re talking about how it feels to interact with and how it will make us wet too.
Water isn’t wet if we’re talking about things which are supposed to be dry but aren’t, like when surveying the damage after a spill.
I don’t mean to butt in if the two of you are just having fun, but this Vsauce video on the philosophy of definitions might help sort through some of the more confusing feelings.