Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
Near Lurker:
Keep in mind, the TM and the lambda calculus were originally meant to simulate human ratiocination.
no one special:
--- Quote from: DSL on 28 Sep 2012, 05:06 ---"Minutiae" vs. "major societal shift" doesn't define canon; "In the strip" vs. "Not in the strip" does, no matter the magnitude.
--- End quote ---
Even that doesn't define canon. Canon is described by whatever the creator wants it to be. It is canon that Albus Dumbledore is gay. Didn't happen in the books - but it's canon because Rowling says it is. As you said before, Jeph said that something in a tweet could become canon if he wanted it to be. Canon is defined by the author, no matter the source.
Canon, however, can also be inferred, given a particular situation. If you take a look at Jeph's newspost that day, combined with the context of the comic, it's clear that in the QC world, at this particular point in time, Emily's initial questions were offensive, whether we agree with that assessment or not. I'm seriously wondering how this conversation is still ongoing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding whether or not computer science should be taught (besides that it should still be taught for its own sake):
a) Do we know that AI are self-sustaining? Maintenance, upkeep, upgrades, all that sort of thing - at this point, there still have to be humans involved in the AI life cycle. Unless AI have completely taken over the means of production(all the way down to the mining of the raw materials), humans are not only still involved, but still trying to make a buck. That being the case, humans learning computer science is still absolutely necessary, even on the most basic of levels. Besides that fact humans are no doubt still researching how to make AI better, since we as a species NEVER know to quit while we're ahead.
b) Maybe AI don't yet know how to create themselves at all. I mean, is it a given that they do? Or was it insisted upon that they should be taught to do so, considering that it would be their form of procreation? Humans built the first AI - do we know for certain that human's aren't in charge of the "creches" that give birth to the AI's? If AI have yet to learn self-production, then computer scientists and engineers would be wildly necessary in the QC universe's near future.
c) Not all branches of computer science would lead directly to AI development. People still use personal computers and music players in the QC universe, after all. Cars still have computers, no doubt. Etc., etc.
Pilchard123:
RE: b)
If they can create other AIs, can they improve them? Or can they only replicate themselves or a 'lower/weaker' AI?
pwhodges:
--- Quote from: no one special on 29 Sep 2012, 00:40 ---I'm seriously wondering how this conversation is still ongoing.
--- End quote ---
In literary criticism it is widely held that once a creative work is presented to the public it becomes independent of authorial intent, and its interpretation is in the hands of the reader. Of course, when the author's decisions affect his continuation of the story, this viewpoint is weakened.
In a musical example, a pianist recounts how he played one of Bartok's pieces to the composer, who then said something like; 'interesting; that's not what I had in mind... - but you should continue to play it your way'.
Method of Madness:
--- Quote from: no one special on 29 Sep 2012, 00:40 ---
--- Quote from: DSL on 28 Sep 2012, 05:06 ---"Minutiae" vs. "major societal shift" doesn't define canon; "In the strip" vs. "Not in the strip" does, no matter the magnitude.
--- End quote ---
Even that doesn't define canon. Canon is described by whatever the creator wants it to be. It is canon that Albus Dumbledore is gay. Didn't happen in the books - but it's canon because Rowling says it is. As you said before, Jeph said that something in a tweet could become canon if he wanted it to be. Canon is defined by the author, no matter the source.
--- End quote ---
Dumbledore may or may not be gay*, because it didn't happen in the books. Like I've said before, canon is complicated. Some people (including me), define canon like DSL, in which canon = from the works. Some (including you), define canon as "whatever the creator says". At the end of the day, does it really matter what canon is? It's just a tool to discuss art, and art always has multiple interpretations. Maybe it does matter what canon is because if the author can decide canon outside the works, people will dismiss other interpretations.
*I never really gave it thought until the "he's gay" announcement, but I think giving Dumbledore any sexuality humanizes him, which may be why Rowling tried to do it after the fact. But the books make him so much more than human that it doesn't really work, at least not without canon backing it up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version