3 ms·

In this comment you articulated what I usually struggle to whenever people bring up predictions about programmers becoming obsolete. Programming is fundamental

In this comment you articulated what I usually struggle to whenever people bring up predictions about programmers becoming obsolete. Programming is fundamentally too technical to be able to elegantly replace with speaking/typing sentences in layman's terms.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
No it isn't. The mistake Dijkstra - and everyone else - makes is assuming the code has to be a complete description of the algorithm used to solved the problem. Algorithms are fragile and have edge cases, so of course you can't specify an algorithm without a formal algorithm description language. But if you have an AGI that can infer intent and has contextual awareness, domain-specific knowledge, and a complete library of previous conversations and their resulting solutions, the problem stops being so problematic. Especially if the AGI can ask questions about your intent if your specification is still ambiguous. Even more so if it can research and explore a large improvised solution space and use its own heuristics to find the most robust solutions. So natural language programming will be very much be a thing in the future. But not for quite a while yet.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  "All we have to do is have a computer that's as smart as a human, and then programming doesn't have to be so technical!" Well sure, but we don't know when that's gonna happen, if ever.
- andi999 6y ago
  Actually if an AGI has access to previous conversations it might just get utterly confused. So is 'goto considered harmful' or can you have 'structured programming with go to'. Probably real people also get confused thats why nobody reads this stuff.
- gtsop 6y ago
  You are "proving" we are wrong by "assuming" the existence of a solution. This is a falacy. I would also argue that contextual awareness of a computer will never resemble the contextual awareness of a human being. That is because contextual awareness can only be derrived by actively participating in a culture, inherent attribute of human beings and not a thing computers can do. However, even if computers came to have contextual awareness as a human (again, i don't believe this is possible) that is something we would not want. Cultural differences produce different interpretations out of the same input. Example: Is it ok for a guy to get married with 10 women? Depending on your location on this world, the answer WILL be dofferent. Do you really want computers to interpret and (more importantly) act on their own based on some sort of contextual awareness they came up with? I'd say not.
- User23 6y ago
  Ah yes, the sufficiently smart compiler.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

No it isn't. The mistake Dijkstra - and everyone else - makes is assuming the code has to be a complete description of the algorithm used to solved the problem. Algorithms are fragile and have edge cases, so of course you can't specify an algorithm without a formal algorithm description language. But if you have an AGI that can infer intent and has contextual awareness, domain-specific knowledge, and a complete library of previous conversations and their resulting solutions, the problem stops being so problematic. Especially if the AGI can ask questions about your intent if your specification is still ambiguous. Even more so if it can research and explore a large improvised solution space and use its own heuristics to find the most robust solutions. So natural language programming will be very much be a thing in the future. But not for quite a while yet.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
"All we have to do is have a computer that's as smart as a human, and then programming doesn't have to be so technical!" Well sure, but we don't know when that's gonna happen, if ever.
andi999 6y ago
Actually if an AGI has access to previous conversations it might just get utterly confused. So is 'goto considered harmful' or can you have 'structured programming with go to'. Probably real people also get confused thats why nobody reads this stuff.
gtsop 6y ago
You are "proving" we are wrong by "assuming" the existence of a solution. This is a falacy. I would also argue that contextual awareness of a computer will never resemble the contextual awareness of a human being. That is because contextual awareness can only be derrived by actively participating in a culture, inherent attribute of human beings and not a thing computers can do. However, even if computers came to have contextual awareness as a human (again, i don't believe this is possible) that is something we would not want. Cultural differences produce different interpretations out of the same input. Example: Is it ok for a guy to get married with 10 women? Depending on your location on this world, the answer WILL be dofferent. Do you really want computers to interpret and (more importantly) act on their own based on some sort of contextual awareness they came up with? I'd say not.
User23 6y ago
Ah yes, the sufficiently smart compiler.