• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 30th, 2023

help-circle
  • Both can be discussed. In fact many levels of this can be discussed, from the effect on individuals and families involved in the crash, the effect on the owners of the buildings, the effect on the airport, the city, the airline, the country.

    Just because they’re talking about the effects of a disaster like this on Air India, it doesn’t take away from what happened to the individuals. It shows the massive reverberations of an event like this.

    The airline still has individuals working for it whose livelihood is potentially affected. There are people making the planes that the airline is purchasing. It’s people who live in India who are in mourning over the individuals who died but also shocked at the impact to a symbol of national pride.

    If you’re not ready to think about the people beyond those directly affected, that’s fine. (I’m not being facetious. Everyone processes things in a different way. It’s really okay.) But a story like this is inevitably going to be bigger than those individuals and people will talk about different aspects of it. If it wasn’t that big, we probably wouldn’t be hearing or talking about it at all at this point.



  • I’m not trying to “win” anything, don’t try to dismiss me because you perceive you’re “losing” and you don’t understand word definitions.

    Do you even know what semantics is? Do you want me to give you the definition of that, too? If you’re going to use it as a pejorative, you better learn the meaning of the word.

    I’m telling you what the definition of simulation is so you understand why some of us are saying why Simulated Intelligence is the correct term, literally, since you seem focused on the literal. You’re the one who started arguing semantics (in your first comment), but got it wrong, by implying a simulation had to be the actual thing (“literally”) . Then I showed you that the definition of simulation is that it is an imitation, not the actual thing and you say I’m arguing “semantics”. Well yeah, that’s what we’re doing here, we’re both arguing the semantics of what it means to be Simulated Intelligence. If that’s not what you’re doing, then why did you comment at all?

    The whole point of creating a simulation is that it doesn’t take the same amount of work as the actual thing, but it can - and it doesn’t have to be perfect - make you think it is the real thing. If it was perfect, then you’re done, you don’t have to make the real thing, and it’s no longer a simulation.

    A flight simulator doesn’t actually fly. If it did, it would be an airplane.

    Simulated Intelligence doesn’t actually have to be intelligent. If it was, it would be (Artificial) Intelligence.

    You can say what we have is a bad simulation, but it’s still a simulation, and it’s a much better simulation than it is real intelligence. So Simulated Intelligence is the correct term.