Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: The AI specified bicycle features of the future
Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 08:34:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <4ga65jdbjmd9jevgc3imeal6b2jhn672u3@4ax.com>
References: <8c915jh72csumpn470ur8ffo2v7odn6j8c@4ax.com> <v2qn5k$2ebfn$1@dont-email.me> <1ja45jhruruii7ap5scg4i5hrv2amsiqvs@4ax.com> <v2td1i$30g4n$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 May 2024 14:34:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e09f3f852aa723a80bedd324d82cf3d3";
	logging-data="3591183"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2HKDk6A5nBYv4sBfQOhvN7JMilPJJjSg="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JDCcC48lLbS4AhmAjxViAmxnhvw=
Bytes: 2997

On Sat, 25 May 2024 14:09:39 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/25/2024 1:51 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 14:44:04 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5/24/2024 10:47 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> (mega chomp)
>> 
>>>> Remember, this is a conceptual design, but who knows? The future might
>>>> surprise us with even more incredible innovations!
>>>
>>> Meh...I'll just stick with the basics....
>> 
>> Did you notice that the CoPirate AI generated list of features didn't
>> include anything that would be considered innovative or revolutionary?
>> All of the items suggested were existing for failed products.  Nothing
>> futuristic or attention grabbing.  That's to be expected because the
>> data used to train the AI was probably limited to existing products
>> because Microsoft doesn't make any money advertising science fiction
>> bicycles.  If you're brain storming for revolutionary ideas, then
>> CoPirate and probably Google Gemini, both of whom are funded by
>> advertising, are unlikely to be very useful.
>> 
>> Hmmm... basic bicycle?  Like this?
>> 
>> "A Prehistoric STONE bike?"
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSIiBetTgjk>  (19:54)
>> To bypass the construction and go directly to the first ride:
>> <https://youtu.be/SSIiBetTgjk?t=965>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>Makes sense. Bicycles reached their apex before 1900* (steel 
>frames, neutral handling geometry, tubular tires and fixed 
>gear).
>
>Typical example:
>https://luxlow.com/bicycles/vintageroadtrackbikes/1898-antique-davis-dayton-model-22-special-road-racer-bike-2950/
>
>All features after are refinements and/or geegaws.
>
>*one might quibble that coaster brakes date from 1899.

Seems to me that the description of a "basic bicycle" is a subjective
evaluation.  It's the same with many other subjects. Is the
synchromesh transmission a geegaw?