Computer models of reality will always be simulacra, and the gap between reality and the model is where death and failure in general reside. "A map is not the territory," explains that computer models are always a perception, and while a technology may even be able to switch between myriad of these "perceptions", the conclusions derived will themselves be limited to a simulation of reality, no matter what.
Sure, technological advances will boost the vision resolution or interpretive rigor to insane levels (compared to present day), and this will be used to acquire increased confidence from the public, but is that enough for you to sit your child in the street and trust the driverless car to steer around it? This is the question I would ask of any proponent of any model-interpreting public technology.
Sure, technological advances will boost the vision resolution or interpretive rigor to insane levels (compared to present day), and this will be used to acquire increased confidence from the public, but is that enough for you to sit your child in the street and trust the driverless car to steer around it? This is the question I would ask of any proponent of any model-interpreting public technology.