|
|
|
|
|
|
by nuancebydefault
747 days ago
|
|
|
I think it is okay to philosophise about situations and events that seem a bit paradoxal but the explanation is obvious. Even more, that is a core trait of philosophy. There are many similar situations where what we hear, read or see is technically incorrect. Since the sender (or the activator of an agent) of the message in such case assumes the interpreter has enough common knowledge, it is a perfectly okay communication. A video tape containing a recording: "your watching this means I'm dead." A secretary of a company impersonating the company when sending a message to many recipients. An actor speaking about his character, as if they are somebody they know very well. Writing that an AI hallucinates. My car informing me that one of the tyres is low on pressure, even though it does not know what a tyre is, let alone how to measure pressure. |
|
|
Thank you for putting this in a larger philosophical prospective. For I have something on the next level, a car that tells me "a tire has low pressure", but does NOT tell me which tire it is. I did the best I could to understand why my beloved car would do this, but gave up and had to interpret it as a deliberately malicious act.
My suspicions were confirmed when 1 of 4 sensors (inside the tires) had failed, and the technician read the diagnostic and proceeded directly to the tire in question. I had been desperately holding on to the remote possibility that the car really didn't know which tire has low pressure or which sensor failed, but it told the technician but not me.
I am wondering if it would be best to give the car to the technician to ensure my personal safety. How would the next aspect of this dislike manifest? Most scenarios I can think of result in the car's own suicide, but perhaps it will run me over? Please help.
Signed, LOW TIRE PRESSURE