I think their point is that it won’t ever be there/them. What makes a person can not be consolidated down into written documentation.
To add to that, AI is technically there. You can make an interactive image of someone (3D may not be there yet) with a custom voice and have it respond like the original person (based on info we have on them). The issue is that it will never actually be that person.
In 1903, the president of Michigan Savings Bank warned Henry Ford’s lawyer, Horace Rackham, to protect his money. “The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad,” he advised.
The sum of a man is not a handful of primary sources. Unless we invent some form of time machine there isn’t a way to accurately portray historical figures. Anything that does will be influenced and biased by the person who created it (and will most likely be done to push a narrative)
And you seem to have misconstrued my point. We seem to be talking at odds without listening to each other, so it’s probably a good idea just to end it. I could just paraphrase your statement but substitute books (or whatever). It’s not the real thing, it’s going through a human filter that is going to have influenced and be biased, so it doesn’t matter. And things will never get good enough to prove me wrong. I’m done.
I think their point is that it won’t ever be there/them. What makes a person can not be consolidated down into written documentation.
To add to that, AI is technically there. You can make an interactive image of someone (3D may not be there yet) with a custom voice and have it respond like the original person (based on info we have on them). The issue is that it will never actually be that person.
You seem to have misconstrued my point.
The sum of a man is not a handful of primary sources. Unless we invent some form of time machine there isn’t a way to accurately portray historical figures. Anything that does will be influenced and biased by the person who created it (and will most likely be done to push a narrative)
And you seem to have misconstrued my point. We seem to be talking at odds without listening to each other, so it’s probably a good idea just to end it. I could just paraphrase your statement but substitute books (or whatever). It’s not the real thing, it’s going through a human filter that is going to have influenced and be biased, so it doesn’t matter. And things will never get good enough to prove me wrong. I’m done.