My opinion is that we have little to no interest in what animals, plants, or even other people are thinking. The vast majority of it would be considered crude and offensive at best.
Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
11–17 of 17 posts
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#12My dog already talks. She barks. And her barks mean “hey!”
What exactly is AI going to do to improve on that?
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#13Some random guy on the Internet's blog post about how he thinks talking animals are nearly a thing, with zero references/evidence or anything, doesn't really seems like HN content?
And of course there's AI!
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#14Here is what my dog would say when I’m going out…
“What?!” “no no no no no” “hey HEY” “come back!”
I could not bear to hear that. Barking is better.
If you could talk to the animals— just imagine it— they would say things that were only boring, distressing, or bizarre. And they would have no comprehension of what we say to them.
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#15Is humanity prepared to find out that our loving dogs walk around with the thought “I can’t wait to kill this guy and take over the pack”.
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#16There is no training dataset to map the sensor data to thoughts. We don't know the meaning of what they're thinking. It's futile without a way to develop training data.
A very limited training dataset can perhaps be created with binary choices that the animal can be trained to communicate via physical actions. With sufficient effort, an embedding model mapping thoughts to concepts can be developed. Still, how to convert the embedding vector to text is unclear.
Re: Animals could easily be talking to us if we tried
#17I chose to read this as a really good satire on the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I chose to read this as the blog of someone who should put down the vape pen once in a while.