Timeline for Are the machines upon us?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2018 at 10:22 | comment | added | j4nd3r53n | I don't agree with the sentiment that you and others appear to imply here - "Why speculate about what if ...". Most of the progress made in mathematics and other sciences is the result of what was initially idle speculation - the usefulness only became apparent later, in many cases. Curiosity doesn't need any other reason. | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 6:06 | comment | added | ccorn | True for SCIgen. (I added that as an afterthought, but that admittedly does not match the disruption scenario.). But then again: I don't understand why you would... is reassuring, but not a convincing argument by itself. Fortunately, it is not needed; the other parts of your post demonstrate quite well that even if there were a motive for disruption, there would be more likely channels for that, and high-bandwidth posting would have its own characteristics. | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 5:50 | comment | added | Derek Elkins left SE | I completely understand why you might want to make a natural language generator and see if it can fool people. I don't understand why you would you would then want to attempt to disrupt StackExchange with it. The creators of SCIgen didn't follow its creation with flooding Elsevier journals with generated papers to attempt to destroy their viability. | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 5:39 | vote | accept | ccorn | ||
| Jun 13, 2018 at 5:39 | comment | added | ccorn | I think that this is an acceptable answer. But let me note that skepticism of the form Why would they want to do that? can always be answered with "because they can." Like for SCIgen. | |
| Jun 13, 2018 at 1:21 | history | answered | Derek Elkins left SE | CC BY-SA 4.0 |