5 ms·

Can someone summarize? I couldn't follow this but given the author, it sounds like something i should pay attention to as a budding educator

throaw17122020w 6y ago
If you can't follow, why care?
- KMag 6y ago
  Such a fatalistic view of human understanding helps no one. "couldn't" is past tense. The GP clearly expects/hopes there's a quick remedy here, and your reasoning about "can't" in the present tense (and implied continuing future tense) doesn't hold.
  - throaw17122020w 6y ago
    Present with extra steps doesn't entice me. How about you come up with something else other than "-ism", then we'll talk (maybe).
- zachdaniel 6y ago
  No need to be rude.
cratermoon 6y ago
Computers and programs are really complex; programming is really hard; Programming (computer science) will eventually be able to replace human reasoning (and be better at), but the complexity to do that requires deep mathematical knowledge and formal methods (Djikstra was a big fan of formal program proving). Universities aren't teaching computer science, because businesses don't care about that, they just want coders. I took a few computer science courses at UT back when Djikstra (not from Djikstra himself, though, from Dr. Nell Dale) was there. Everything in the algorithms class came with formal proofs. Loop invariants were core concepts. The book was not yet published, we spiral-bound photocopy of the draft.
- ausbah 6y ago
  banking on computers to automate human reasoning anytime in the near future is laughable at best, utter naivety at worst
  - gumby 6y ago
    "banking" is the right word as this assertion is used to induce VCs to disgorge huge globs of their customers' money.
  - solveit 6y ago
    Banking on computers to automate all of human reasoning? Sure. Preparing for computers to automate some disproportionately impactful subset of human reasoning, on the other hand, is very reasonable.
  - sjg007 6y ago
    I'm pretty confident you're wrong.
  - KMag 6y ago
    We are incrementally replacing human reasoning with computation in the present day. For instance, most static type checkers are weak but fast theorem provers, and type inference replaces some of the human reasoning involved. Granted, static type checking is a very minor corner case, but manifold small incremental changes add up. It's untrue that human reasoning has never been replaced with automation, and it's untrue that human reasoning isn't currently in the process of being further replaced. I agree that total replacement of human reasoning is likely any time soon. However, I'd argue that total replacement of human reasoning implies removal of human desires from the input. (What are programs, if not incredibly formal expressions of what humans desire computers to do? How can we divorce human desires from human reasoning about what is good/desirable?) Science fiction provides numerous examples of how a complete decoupling of computers from human desires can go terribly wrong.
  - birdsbirdsbirds 6y ago
    Turing, as well as, nine days ago: Where Did Combinators Come From? Hunting the Story of Moses Schönfinkel [0] Reasoning is computation. It's one suppressed thought away. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335175
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

throaw17122020w 6y ago

If you can't follow, why care?

KMag 6y ago
Such a fatalistic view of human understanding helps no one. "couldn't" is past tense. The GP clearly expects/hopes there's a quick remedy here, and your reasoning about "can't" in the present tense (and implied continuing future tense) doesn't hold.
- throaw17122020w 6y ago
  Present with extra steps doesn't entice me. How about you come up with something else other than "-ism", then we'll talk (maybe).
zachdaniel 6y ago
No need to be rude.

cratermoon 6y ago

Computers and programs are really complex; programming is really hard; Programming (computer science) will eventually be able to replace human reasoning (and be better at), but the complexity to do that requires deep mathematical knowledge and formal methods (Djikstra was a big fan of formal program proving). Universities aren't teaching computer science, because businesses don't care about that, they just want coders. I took a few computer science courses at UT back when Djikstra (not from Djikstra himself, though, from Dr. Nell Dale) was there. Everything in the algorithms class came with formal proofs. Loop invariants were core concepts. The book was not yet published, we spiral-bound photocopy of the draft.

ausbah 6y ago
banking on computers to automate human reasoning anytime in the near future is laughable at best, utter naivety at worst
- gumby 6y ago
  "banking" is the right word as this assertion is used to induce VCs to disgorge huge globs of their customers' money.
- solveit 6y ago
  Banking on computers to automate all of human reasoning? Sure. Preparing for computers to automate some disproportionately impactful subset of human reasoning, on the other hand, is very reasonable.
- sjg007 6y ago
  I'm pretty confident you're wrong.
- KMag 6y ago
  We are incrementally replacing human reasoning with computation in the present day. For instance, most static type checkers are weak but fast theorem provers, and type inference replaces some of the human reasoning involved. Granted, static type checking is a very minor corner case, but manifold small incremental changes add up. It's untrue that human reasoning has never been replaced with automation, and it's untrue that human reasoning isn't currently in the process of being further replaced. I agree that total replacement of human reasoning is likely any time soon. However, I'd argue that total replacement of human reasoning implies removal of human desires from the input. (What are programs, if not incredibly formal expressions of what humans desire computers to do? How can we divorce human desires from human reasoning about what is good/desirable?) Science fiction provides numerous examples of how a complete decoupling of computers from human desires can go terribly wrong.
- birdsbirdsbirds 6y ago
  Turing, as well as, nine days ago: Where Did Combinators Come From? Hunting the Story of Moses Schönfinkel [0] Reasoning is computation. It's one suppressed thought away. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25335175

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]