(arxiv.org)

26 points sandwichsphinx | 1 comments | 19 Nov 24 03:54 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source

Show context

thom ◴[19 Nov 24 08:45 UTC] No.42181255[source]▶

I have no idea why it needles me so much, and I will cathartically accept any downvotes, but why has the phrase “digital twin” entered our lexicon when it just means “model” or “simulation”? I’ve worked with incredibly smart AI engineers who talked about “building a digital twin” when they just meant “storing some data”. Maddening.

replies(4): >>42182320 #>>42182648 #>>42182896 #>>42182966 #

1. wink ◴[19 Nov 24 12:55 UTC] No.42182896[source]▶

>>42181255 #

In the definition (or maybe even more the usage) I know, you're missing certain properties.

E.g. you can and will sync properties to the digital twin, and back. Obviously this does not work for animals (yet?...) but the digital twin of a car can have changes that are then propagated back to the original.

I don't get any of this in any definition of "model" or "simulation" I know.

↑

Iumenta: A generic framework for animal digital twins