Sorry, I was replying to the notion of feeding the "What constitutes a dead computer language" into an AI for a summary. Looks like I crossed the wires.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 6:04 PM Bill Gunshannon via cctalk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 6/23/2026 9:33 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: > > It doesn't really matter. The question was asked (which is appreciated) > > and Rich gave his answer. I see no reason to ask him to defend how he > > chooses to dispose of his property. > > I would also object. If my input is to be used to feed some corporations > AI for profit operation I would likely leave the list. > > bill > > > > > paul > > > >> On Jun 22, 2026, at 10:58 PM, Jim Davis via cctalk <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> What? Are you chicken McFly? AI is useful as a gopher and another set > >> of not to be trusted eyes. > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2026 at 7:10 PM Rich Alderson via cctalk > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> Tom Gardner via cctalk <[email protected]> writes: > >>> > >>>> This conversation has been fascinating - I'm tempted to collect all of > >>>> the emails on this topic and run them thru an AI for a summary - > >>>> anyone object or have a better idea? > >>> > >>> Yeah. I object. Don't do that. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Rich Alderson > >>> [email protected] > >>> Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur, > >>> omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus. > >>> > >>> --Galen > >
