4 ms·

"Reducing the number of available jobs" is a very reasonable statement. How much time do you spend gluing together ready made components? How different is the l

by fmap 10y ago

"Reducing the number of available jobs" is a very reasonable statement. How much time do you spend gluing together ready made components? How different is the latest CRUD app you wrote from the first one you wrote? That's definitely something that could be automated, and it doesn't need "machine learning"... It needs investment in building new infrastructure, which almost nobody invests in because it's difficult to make money from that. On the other hand, automating all of programming is a pipe dream. If you could do that, you could also automate mathematics and by extension most of the sciences...

erelde 10y ago
Honest question to logicians: Is there any proof that it [automating programming, mathematics, scientific method] is or isn't possible? Is there a way to prove or disprove it mathematically?
- fmap 10y ago
  Anything that humans can do is a priori possible. :) It is merely unlikely to happen while there is anything else left which we can't automate...
- throwaway729 10y ago
  > Is there any proof that it [automating programming, mathematics, scientific method] is or isn't possible? Decidability results can be useful, but note that it's certainly possible to do automated reasoning for undecidable theories. So decidability results are more useful for predicting the difficulty and determining appropriate approaches than for actually determining anything about the possibility of creating a useful system. E.g. the halting problem is famously undecidable, but there's lot of impressive work on termination checking. Misinterpreting undecidable problems as "impossible problems" is a classic undergrad mistake. > Is there a way to prove or disprove it mathematically? No, not really, unless you can be very specific about the exact subproblem you're interested in. And even then, probably not.
  - erelde 10y ago
    > Misinterpreting undecidable problems as "impossible problems" is a classic undergrad mistake. Good thing I am one. Thank you :)

by fmap 10y ago

erelde 10y ago

Honest question to logicians: Is there any proof that it [automating programming, mathematics, scientific method] is or isn't possible? Is there a way to prove or disprove it mathematically?

fmap 10y ago
Anything that humans can do is a priori possible. :) It is merely unlikely to happen while there is anything else left which we can't automate...
throwaway729 10y ago
> Is there any proof that it [automating programming, mathematics, scientific method] is or isn't possible? Decidability results can be useful, but note that it's certainly possible to do automated reasoning for undecidable theories. So decidability results are more useful for predicting the difficulty and determining appropriate approaches than for actually determining anything about the possibility of creating a useful system. E.g. the halting problem is famously undecidable, but there's lot of impressive work on termination checking. Misinterpreting undecidable problems as "impossible problems" is a classic undergrad mistake. > Is there a way to prove or disprove it mathematically? No, not really, unless you can be very specific about the exact subproblem you're interested in. And even then, probably not.
- erelde 10y ago
  > Misinterpreting undecidable problems as "impossible problems" is a classic undergrad mistake. Good thing I am one. Thank you :)