5 ms·
A moment isn't such a long time anymore, not for compute clusters anyway. If we don't keep trying to make AI, we're never gonna get there. I'm not saying data
by cracki 16y ago
A moment isn't such a long time anymore, not for compute clusters anyway.
If we don't keep trying to make AI, we're never gonna get there. I'm not saying data mining is AI. I'm saying human brains do data mining too, but differently, and figuring out how is what might come of all this.
Wolfram-Alpha-style natural language programming actually isn't that bad because it's a dialogue. The thing tells you its assumptions, so you're back to formal representations you can deal with. Natural language is mostly statistics, also known as guesswork. A machine can guess better than humans. Google proves that by suggesting "torrent" every time you search for a movie title.
Dijkstra fears a world where the lack of formalisms prevents progress. That's why he likes formalisms. I do too, maybe not for these exact reasons. Anyway, I take formalisms as a given because they've always been there my whole life.
Formalisms can be impractically formal. The level of precision required by machines is beyond even what most mathematicians are used to casually (i.e., pen and paper, or at a blackboard). If you had to do math like you write code, mathematicians would go bonkers. Include this, type-cast that, ... nah, everyone knows what this and that is supposed to mean, right?
A little NLP could make it easier to command computers. A little more NLP could turn machines into really useful slaves. AI would be opening a can of worms few in this world are prepared to deal with.
- zv 16y agoThis man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and others.
- jimmyjim 16y agoIt's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding. Wisdom is certainly something to take from, but embodying the limits imposed by someone as a roadblock to onself isn't the way to innovation.
- xtho 16y ago> It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that [...] sometimes end up succeeding. Please name some examples. How often is sometimes? What is their probability of success compared to that of domain experts?
- weego 16y agoWill get pointed up but just smacks of passive-agressive argumental. History, specifically in science and math is full of examples where people who actively sought to question the knowledge of more senior experts have made discoveries that advanced the knowledge of human-kind and have then been overlooked or ignored because they did not have the correct background. Institutions such as The Royal Society and The Geological Society where created exactly on this principle. The idea that "you cannot question X because X is a learned man above your station" is what IMO destroys general interest in fields such as physics. You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that one day you will be given enough rope to actually challenge anything. How on earth would you put probability on something like that?
- xtho 16y agoThe existence of a black swan doesn't imply that swans are usually black. A. "There are examples where newcomers to a field found a novel solution that senior experts have missed." B. "It is often the ignorant who succeeds." B does not follow from A. Not even in mathematics where people use to say that you have to prove yourself worthwhile by the age of 25 or it won't happen. > You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that ... This is a slightly different discussion but IMHO in many fields (e.g. medicine) contemporary science has little to do with genious or insight but rather is an industrial effort ... and that _often_ isn't fun.
- danio 16y agoA lesson on logic from somebody who equates "It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding" to "It is often the ignorant who succeeds" seems ironic to put it mildly.
- hxa7241 16y ago> Formalisms can be impractically formal. The level of precision required by machines is beyond even what most mathematicians are used to casually (i.e., pen and paper, or at a blackboard). If you had to do math like you write code, mathematicians would go bonkers. Include this, type-cast that, ... nah, everyone knows what this and that is supposed to mean, right? Mathematics only looks formal: compared to software it is really another natural language -- because its purpose is to communicate between humans, whereas software is ultimately not about communication but design of artifacts. The point about practicality still holds though, but since the purposes are different it must be something of a different kind of practicality to aim at.