• Seraph@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Science is indistinguishable from magic, if you don’t care to learn how science works.

      • Dicska@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        But… if there’s a consistent system along which magic works which can be studied/researched/formulated, then isn’t it just… science?

        • djsoren19@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The keyword is consistent. Some settings have magic as inherently chaotic and difficult to control.

          A good rule of thumb is that if a fantasy setting has a school for magic, it’s probably a science. If it’s knowledge passed from master to magically gifted student, it’s probably not very consistent.

        • kamenLady.@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Watch “Agatha all Along” - the series is managing to answer exactly this question with a great script and cast.

          /s

    • ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      I absolutely feel like in a thousand years, we’ll talk to a machine and not even know how it works.

      Hell, I look at the computer in front of me and only feel like I know a fraction of what’s going on.

      • BlackPenguins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        That’s what neural networks are now. We do not know how it works under the hood. We just feed it training data.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          We do, though.

          Just to make sure my understanding was accurate, I asked Gemini to critique my explanation:

          .

          Unless it’s lying to me about itself, I was able to explain the basics of it in two relatively simple sentences. Of course that doesn’t cover everything, but Gemini thinks that’s a pretty good overview. After expanding on each point in its reply, it said this:

          I think a lot of the confusion over these models stems from hype and marketing that makes them out to be more than what they are.