It’s called “Artificial Intelligence” because, traditionally, researchers stuffed things into this category when they didn’t know how to solve or even address them. The idea has always been “when computers can do THIS they’ll be truly smart!”

Good question!

Kurt Gödel for example never published anything if he was not absolutely convinced that the paper was flawless (by his standards).

I often wonder if Gödel would still find a place in today's academia and how he might adapt.

In der Frage zeigt sich deutlich, warum wir uns auf diese Diskussion nicht einlassen sollten. Kritik an 6 J. war Ausgangspunkt von #IchBinHanna. 6 J. sind schlecht. 4+2 löst Probleme nicht. Wer jetzt fragt, was besser ist, hat schon aufgegeben, auf echte Lösung zu drängen. Wir geben das nicht auf.

Military people smiling - never a good sign

The article attached is worth reading for researchers interested in sensors, semi-autonomous driving and/or gig-work.

Die letzten Vorhersagen lassen es so aussehen, ja. Hoffen wir dennoch, dass es anders kommt.
Grüße nach Bochum!

Wie siehst du das jetzt?

Agreed - and the phenomenon of AI in its current form seems not to be compost in the positive way of Donna Haraway's use of the term, à la "we are not posthuman - we are compost."

As @wordsbywesink.bsky.social put it, it is a rabbit hole. But thanks again. I will look at these passages.

Could they use scientific data or a text one has written for their purposes on a legal basis? Have you encountered something like this?

I will dive into the terms of use as soon as I have the opportunity; thanks for pointing me in this direction.

But besides this—certainly highly problematic—use of data for AI, does your answer imply that these companies are, in some cases (according to their terms of use, etc.), legally entitled to claim your data as their own?