Who said advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?
Who said advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?
Arthur C. Clarke
In 1962, in his book “Profiles of the Future: An Inquiry into the Limits of the Possible”, science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke formulated his famous Three Laws, of which the third law is the best-known and most widely cited: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”.
Is advanced technology distinguishable from magic divinity?
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Clarke’s First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Which causes more trouble ignorance or malice?
Neglect or ignorance are more likely to be the cause than malice. As Goethe wrote, “ Misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.” Hanlon’s razor doesn’t say that actions never occur due to malice.
What is GREY’s law?
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice (Grey’s law)
Is science like magic?
Science can seem like magic because the impossible suddenly appears possible. Science can seem like magic because the tools scientists use are unfamiliar. Science can seem like magic because only the anointed are allowed to do it. Of course, most people do this in a less systematic way than is required by science.
What is the meaning of Clarke’s third law?
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
the statement that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
What does any sufficiently advanced technology?
Clarke’s Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” These are big, flashy examples of technology at work. Sometimes the greatest magic is in the things that just work, and one day you realize just how amazing that seemingly simple task actually is.
Can you not contribute to malice incompetence?
Origins of Hanlon’s Razor Napoleon Bonaparte famously declared: ‘Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. ‘
Do not ascribe to malice that which?
Hanlon’s razor is a saying that reads: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. In simpler words: some bad things happen not because of people having bad intentions, but because they did not think it through properly.
Do you not assume ill intent?
Applied broadly, this principle suggests that when assessing people’s actions, you should not assume that they acted out of a desire to cause harm, as long as there is a reasonable alternative explanation.
Why is science compare to magic?
What is the difference between science and magic?
is that science is (countable) a particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability or science can be while magic is the use of rituals or actions, especially based on supernatural or occult knowledge, to manipulate or …
When do you use incompetence instead of malice?
“ ” Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Sometimes “incompetence” is used instead of “stupidity”. “ ” Therefore you speak unskillfully, or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice.
Which is indistinguishable from Malice in Clark’s Law?
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. (Grey’s law)[5] (compare Hanlon’s razor) Any sufficiently advanced cluelessness is indistinguishable from malice.[6] ( Clark’s law) Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook.
Is there such a thing as incompetence in law?
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Hanlon’s Razor relies on the assumption that ignorance in and of itself isn’t malicious, which often doesn’t fly in a court of actual law (either way, it still led to disaster, so it still needs to be punished).
Do you never assume malice when ignorance will suffice?
Cribbing from a LessWrong commenter: Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice. Never assume stupidity when ignorance will suffice. Never assume ignorance when forgivable error will suffice. Never assume error when information you hadn’t adequately accounted for will suffice.