4 ms·

A prophet will arise in CS

33 points by spottiness 15y ago

contextfree 15y ago
Dijkstra kind of tried to be a prophet in this sense, though I guess he wasn't writing for a general audience.
chriswoodford 15y ago
does this mean that i should get one of those friar tuck cloaks, a copy of PoEAA, and start preaching about martin fowler on street corners?
r00fus 15y ago
Why wouldn't RMS be considered here? His "right to read" [1] is certainly looking prophetic of late. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
- ebiester 15y ago
  He's more of a Jeremiah, live-in-horse-dung type of prophet. We don't listen to those prophets.
  - DennisP 15y ago
    Right, we just eventually look back and say "boy, we shoulda listened to that guy."
icandoitbetter 15y ago
Hofstadter.
Typhon 15y ago
A least, the Eschatology's unusual : « Repent, repent, miserable sinners ! Soon, I tell you, those machines you count on will turn against you ! Soon, yes, in 27 years ! »
iopuy 15y ago
"Bohr was God, and Oppenheimer was his prophet" Physics has had its share of prophets. If you care to learn more about one read "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer." Superb book, winner of the Pulitzer prize.
olalonde 15y ago
What about Ray Kurzweil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
- BinaryAcid 15y ago
  Definitely a prophet in the sense described. Kurzweil is absolutely amazing.
hugh3 15y ago
there was a panel discussion on how to get the public excited about theoretical computer science. Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical computer science. The general public wouldn't be excited about theoretical computer science even if they did understand it. For the general public, the question of theoretical computer science is as interesting as the question of how plumbing works. My computer, they would say, is like my toilet -- it does what it's supposed to do most of the time, and when it breaks down I pay money to get some random jerk in to fix it. I suppose there's some quite interesting details involved in how rainwater that falls into the mountains manages to find its way through a complicated series of pipes to come into my toilet whenever I press this button, but there are far more interesting things to think about, so let's leave those details to the experts. If a prophet of plumbing did show up to explain all the presumably-fascinating-to-someone details of how the city's water supply works then it would probably hold my interest for the duration of a half-hour documentary, but then I'd get on with my life with only a marginally-increased respect for the plumbers who make it happen. I'm sure that waiting for messiahs to show up is a pretty normal sort of human activity, but I'd hate to encourage it.
- patrickyeon 15y ago
  Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical physics. The general public wouldn't be excited about physics even if they did understand the math of quantum physics. For the general public, the question of what makes up matter is as interesting as the question of how beer is made. Matter, they say, is just like beer -- sometimes it tastes different, but it's just there to quench my thirst and mellow me out. I suppose there are interesting details involved in making beer, but let's leave those to the experts. When a prophet of beer (beer snob) does show up, I listen to a lot of descriptive words that don't mean much to me, learn some fascinating history, but then the next evening I'll still be ordering the same regular as I did last night. And yet, against all that, Feynman and Hawking have sparked many peoples' interest in physics, even among those who will never run an experiment, or take a formal course. Computer science is not about computers, and there's no need to conflate it with using a computer. See http://csunplugged.com http://csunplugged.com for some attempts to make CS interesting while teaching it to primary- and secondary- school aged children without using actual computers, for example.
bluekeybox 15y ago
Alan Turing has enough of a tragic hero charisma to serve as one; it's ridiculous his name isn't even mentioned in the post. It's another question whether popularization is a good thing in the first place. According to one sentiment, medicine is perceived as being "too popular" (no doubt at least in part thanks to the popular medical dramas you see on TV), filled with people who are in it exclusively for money rather than for intellectual challenge or desire to help people. As a result, many bright people who would have made great doctors do not go into it.
btilly 15y ago
The thesis that nobody has every popularized any branch of science is wrong. There used to be a tradition of having seminal books like The Origin of the Species being aimed at being understandable to a large audience of educated people. And books in that vein still do appear, for instance Guns, Germs and Steel is both a popular book and a serious academic work.
- timwiseman 15y ago
  You have a point, but keep in mind that some very relevant things have changedsince then. Two to consdier: 1. At that time (roughly 1859), the percentage of the population that was considered educated is much smaller than it is now, and many of those in the educated class where indepently wealthy (or directly sponsored by someone who was) and had little expectation on them other than to be educated. 2. Knowledge was much was less specialized then than it is now. I have been told that it is not uncommon now for a number theorist to have a hard time explaining the details of his work to someone who had specialized in analysis, much less to members of the "large audience of educated people."
kenjackson 15y ago
There's a fundamental difference between physics and CS in that there aren't as many sci-fi aspects to CS theory. Think about what is popular in physics: time travel, parallel universes, teleportation, beginning/end of the universe/time, aliens. What are the sci-fi things in CS? Really fast factoring and fast routing for a vacuum cleaner sales guy. The one potential element is AI. But CS has largely abandoned what the public views as AI. And even when there's a public show of AI, think Watson, many in CS come and say, "that's not really AI". IMO, AI is where the public can catch on to CS. But AI isn't what's generally referred to as theoretical CS -- you won't see AI papers at FOCS/STOC.
michaelf 15y ago
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824058,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824058,00.h... I was surprised to find this old article from Time magazine back in 1956. It concerns the solution to Post's Problem, which the article describes quite succinctly as: | The problem: Does each non-recursive, recursively enumerable set have the property that every recursively enumerable set is recursive in it? Post himself thought not, but it was not until young Friedberg came along that anyone had the proof. Can you imagine a mass-market magazine publishing such a thing today? Perhaps it's unnecessary, since anyone interested in computability theory probably pays attention to blogs like Scott Aaronson's. There's a quote from from Gödel later in the article that may also speak to the problem of popularization: | "Unfortunately," says Czech-born Kurt Godel of the institute, "he wants to study medicine. An achievement like this at his age comes only once in a lifetime.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

33 points by spottiness 15y ago

Dijkstra kind of tried to be a prophet in this sense, though I guess he wasn't writing for a general audience.

does this mean that i should get one of those friar tuck cloaks, a copy of PoEAA, and start preaching about martin fowler on street corners?

r00fus 15y ago

Why wouldn't RMS be considered here? His "right to read" [1] is certainly looking prophetic of late. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

ebiester 15y ago
He's more of a Jeremiah, live-in-horse-dung type of prophet. We don't listen to those prophets.
- DennisP 15y ago
  Right, we just eventually look back and say "boy, we shoulda listened to that guy."

icandoitbetter 15y ago

Hofstadter.

Typhon 15y ago

A least, the Eschatology's unusual : « Repent, repent, miserable sinners ! Soon, I tell you, those machines you count on will turn against you ! Soon, yes, in 27 years ! »

iopuy 15y ago

"Bohr was God, and Oppenheimer was his prophet" Physics has had its share of prophets. If you care to learn more about one read "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer." Superb book, winner of the Pulitzer prize.

olalonde 15y ago

What about Ray Kurzweil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil

BinaryAcid 15y ago
Definitely a prophet in the sense described. Kurzweil is absolutely amazing.

hugh3 15y ago

there was a panel discussion on how to get the public excited about theoretical computer science. Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical computer science. The general public wouldn't be excited about theoretical computer science even if they did understand it. For the general public, the question of theoretical computer science is as interesting as the question of how plumbing works. My computer, they would say, is like my toilet -- it does what it's supposed to do most of the time, and when it breaks down I pay money to get some random jerk in to fix it. I suppose there's some quite interesting details involved in how rainwater that falls into the mountains manages to find its way through a complicated series of pipes to come into my toilet whenever I press this button, but there are far more interesting things to think about, so let's leave those details to the experts. If a prophet of plumbing did show up to explain all the presumably-fascinating-to-someone details of how the city's water supply works then it would probably hold my interest for the duration of a half-hour documentary, but then I'd get on with my life with only a marginally-increased respect for the plumbers who make it happen. I'm sure that waiting for messiahs to show up is a pretty normal sort of human activity, but I'd hate to encourage it.

patrickyeon 15y ago
Forget it. Nothing is going to make the general public excited about theoretical physics. The general public wouldn't be excited about physics even if they did understand the math of quantum physics. For the general public, the question of what makes up matter is as interesting as the question of how beer is made. Matter, they say, is just like beer -- sometimes it tastes different, but it's just there to quench my thirst and mellow me out. I suppose there are interesting details involved in making beer, but let's leave those to the experts. When a prophet of beer (beer snob) does show up, I listen to a lot of descriptive words that don't mean much to me, learn some fascinating history, but then the next evening I'll still be ordering the same regular as I did last night. And yet, against all that, Feynman and Hawking have sparked many peoples' interest in physics, even among those who will never run an experiment, or take a formal course. Computer science is not about computers, and there's no need to conflate it with using a computer. See http://csunplugged.com http://csunplugged.com for some attempts to make CS interesting while teaching it to primary- and secondary- school aged children without using actual computers, for example.

bluekeybox 15y ago

Alan Turing has enough of a tragic hero charisma to serve as one; it's ridiculous his name isn't even mentioned in the post. It's another question whether popularization is a good thing in the first place. According to one sentiment, medicine is perceived as being "too popular" (no doubt at least in part thanks to the popular medical dramas you see on TV), filled with people who are in it exclusively for money rather than for intellectual challenge or desire to help people. As a result, many bright people who would have made great doctors do not go into it.

btilly 15y ago

The thesis that nobody has every popularized any branch of science is wrong. There used to be a tradition of having seminal books like The Origin of the Species being aimed at being understandable to a large audience of educated people. And books in that vein still do appear, for instance Guns, Germs and Steel is both a popular book and a serious academic work.

timwiseman 15y ago
You have a point, but keep in mind that some very relevant things have changedsince then. Two to consdier: 1. At that time (roughly 1859), the percentage of the population that was considered educated is much smaller than it is now, and many of those in the educated class where indepently wealthy (or directly sponsored by someone who was) and had little expectation on them other than to be educated. 2. Knowledge was much was less specialized then than it is now. I have been told that it is not uncommon now for a number theorist to have a hard time explaining the details of his work to someone who had specialized in analysis, much less to members of the "large audience of educated people."

kenjackson 15y ago

There's a fundamental difference between physics and CS in that there aren't as many sci-fi aspects to CS theory. Think about what is popular in physics: time travel, parallel universes, teleportation, beginning/end of the universe/time, aliens. What are the sci-fi things in CS? Really fast factoring and fast routing for a vacuum cleaner sales guy. The one potential element is AI. But CS has largely abandoned what the public views as AI. And even when there's a public show of AI, think Watson, many in CS come and say, "that's not really AI". IMO, AI is where the public can catch on to CS. But AI isn't what's generally referred to as theoretical CS -- you won't see AI papers at FOCS/STOC.

michaelf 15y ago

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824058,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,824058,00.h... I was surprised to find this old article from Time magazine back in 1956. It concerns the solution to Post's Problem, which the article describes quite succinctly as: | The problem: Does each non-recursive, recursively enumerable set have the property that every recursively enumerable set is recursive in it? Post himself thought not, but it was not until young Friedberg came along that anyone had the proof. Can you imagine a mass-market magazine publishing such a thing today? Perhaps it's unnecessary, since anyone interested in computability theory probably pays attention to blogs like Scott Aaronson's. There's a quote from from Gödel later in the article that may also speak to the problem of popularization: | "Unfortunately," says Czech-born Kurt Godel of the institute, "he wants to study medicine. An achievement like this at his age comes only once in a lifetime.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]