Phoebe Bright
May 3, 2023

Yes and no. I'ts not straight copying, after all each performance is different so I'm having to do quite a lot of processing of my own, comparing it to previous competitors in order to predict what the judge will award. If I were to continue to do this with different judges I would get pretty good at awarding the correct mark, I just might not be able to explain why. An interesting question you raise is what forms of learning, trial and error, mimicry and instruction, and in what order is mostly likely to give rise to original thought. And an even more interesting question - how much original thought do we want in dressage judges!

Sign up to discover human stories that deepen your understanding of the world.

Free

Distraction-free reading. No ads.

Organize your knowledge with lists and highlights.

Tell your story. Find your audience.

Membership

Read member-only stories

Support writers you read most

Earn money for your writing

Listen to audio narrations

Read offline with the Medium app

Phoebe Bright
Phoebe Bright

Written by Phoebe Bright

Wide ranging writings — Horse, tech and horse technology, future thinking and scenario planning.

Responses (2)

Write a response

I just might not be able to explain why

There it is, right there. If the "AI" can't tell me how it arrived at its conclusions, there's less "I" in the equation and it's back to situational mimicry, I think. Which is fine... but when people are worried about AI displacing less-hard-fact…

--

And an even more interesting question - how much original thought do we want in dressage judges

Which reminds me of a thing I heard recently where a comedian was making what I thought was a solid argument about one of the things that justifies which sports are really "sports" (quoted for emphasis). Basically, his idea was that if it comes down…

--