3 ms·
> An AGI system should be able to write computer code based on vague specification. If it's intelligent it will write back clarifying questions. What makes you
by runeks 9y ago
> An AGI system should be able to write computer code based on vague specification. If it's intelligent it will write back clarifying questions.
What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out?
To me, what you describe sounds like what every programmer does: enter code and look at what the compiler says. There's nothing qualitatively different from what you describe and a sufficiently powerful type system.
You have to somehow communicate a specification to a computer; this is programming. Languages might become more powerful, but you always want to be able to point to the place in the specification that implements your important feature, and not have some computer hopefully deduce it.
If you have some extremely important implementation note, would you rather specify it in exact terms via code, or give vague hints about it and depend on it being deduced by some AI compiler? What if you have hundreds of important implementation notes? It all ends up being code.
- kowdermeister 9y ago> What makes you think this approach is faster than just writing down the specification in your head? For non programmers, manager type people it would be the holy grail. Not necessarily faster but probably cheaper :) > Is it because you assume the machine can guess important design decisions that you leave out? Yes, if sufficiently enough systems are wired up then it should be able to at least guess what level of abstraction is missing or what to ask next to proceed. I know what programming is, I do it day to day. Here I'm talking about a generally intelligent system that could do the same. The trick obviously is to skip writing detailed enough specification that would be equivalent to code. The article says that programming won't be automated. I say that we don't have the capable systems, but we are getting there slowly.
- taylodl 9y agoCorrect - it's about managing complexity of a different kind. It's not about reducing the complexity, it's about changing the kind of complexity to that which humans are better-equipped to handle. As you say this is the holy grail for non-programmers, which is to say it'll completely redefine what we call "programming."