3 ms·
I don't think we are too far off and AI will be the key. Sometimes I like to remember that anything a computer can do can be done by thousands of people in an
by edoo 7y ago
I don't think we are too far off and AI will be the key. Sometimes I like to remember that anything a computer can do can be done by thousands of people in an office. Take a program you've worked on and think about how you would have implemented it with people instead of code, where each person is a function and the data gets passed on a piece of paper. The designed workflow would be easily described to people, and any exact processing would need to be demonstrated to the worker. The super fine details of processing are usually pretty easy to understand as well as the high level. It should just take some AI assisted translating to find the appropriate processing models for the high level requests, with the ability to learn by demonstration for the edge cases.
- mruts 7y agoI mean, thousands of people are highly concurrent while computers are not, so I don’t think the analogy really holds. If you had people as “functions” and organized them like a computer program, only maybe one person out of a thousand would be doing anything at one time.
- edoo 7y agoIt is a mental exercise to re-frame the problem. Sure it would be inefficient but the point is every stage could be done with reinforcement learning from a high level abstract design without every dealing with 'code'.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoI don't think you've solved the "low code" issue at all. You still have to define the process to the same level of detail; you're just thinking about it differently. What your approach does do is create a system that is easy to parallelize. You want to run on thousands of cores/threads? Make each "person" a thread, and there you go.