Stephen Wolfram

But it writes fiction as well as fact, which is exactly how it's built.

I mean, that's exactly, it is making language and it is making both, even in code, it writes fiction.

I mean, it's kind of fun to see sometimes, you know, it'll write fictional Wolfram language code.

Yeah.

That kind of looks right.

Yeah, it looks right, but it's actually not pragmatically correct.

But yes, it has a view of kind of roughly how the world works.

at the same level as books of fiction talk about roughly how the world works.

They just don't happen to be the way the world actually worked or whatever.

But yes, that's, no, I agree.

That's sort of a, you know, we are attempting with our whole, you know, Wolfram language, computational language thing,

to represent at least, well, it's either, it doesn't necessarily have to be how the actual world works, because we can invent a set of rules that aren't the way the actual world works and run those rules, but then we're saying we're going to accurately represent the results of running those rules, which might or might not be the actual rules of the world.

But we also are trying to capture features of the world as accurately as possible to represent what happens in the world.

Now, again, as we've discussed, you know, the atoms in the world arrange, you know, you say, I don't know, you know, was there a tank that showed up, you know, that, you know, drove somewhere?

Okay, well, you know, what is a tank?

It's an arrangement of atoms that we...

abstractly describe as a tank.

And you could say, well, you know, there's some arrangement of atoms that is a different arrangement of atoms, but it's, and it's not, you know, we didn't decide, it's like this observer theory question of, you know, what arrangement of atoms counts as a tank versus not a tank?

Right, so the question of whether, oh, I don't know,

was this gust of wind strong enough to blow over this particular thing?