3 ms·

I'm not sure what you expect them to be able to do beside using Excel.

fighterpilot 5y ago
Programming an "AI", perhaps. That ticks the boxes of deceptively simple interface and programs a few lines long. It also won't require as much formal training and will be more intuitive and trial error based. GPT-3 and DALL-E have given us a glimpse of what that will look like.
- kaba0 5y ago
  At most one will create an easily teachable AI they can utilize. But that’s most definitely not the same as training a NN by specifying input/layers, etc.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    That's what I meant. Trying to get the already-trained AI to do exactly what you want by modifying the prompt could be thought of as a type of programming and could become a skill-set in itself.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      I believe it will either be "fool-proof" and so intuitive as "Follow the wizard and click on the button you want to be clicked when this and that happens", or it won't happen. I think the biggest obstacle standing between the general populace and computers is the amount of detail one has to provide for a task to become programmable. But it comes up in real life as well.
thrower123 5y ago
Usually the pipe-dream is that some sort of graphical "no-code" or "low-code" system with a crippled DSL will be more benefit than hassle, and enable them to do things without needing to actually know how programming and the whole stack of abstractions they are sitting on work. It's one of those things that is always 20 years away, like nuclear fusion.
- ant6n 5y ago
  This exists in some form. Its called Alteryx, and I have seen non programmers work on gigabytes of table data using it.
throwaway2037 5y ago
And what is wrong with Excel -- functional programming by formulas, and procedural programming by VBA? Until mid 2000s, many Wall Street Investment banks were still running trading desks making 100M+ USD per year profits (each!) using only Excel for quoting and trading. I assume Biotech and Big Oil still use lots of Excel.

Programming an "AI", perhaps. That ticks the boxes of deceptively simple interface and programs a few lines long. It also won't require as much formal training and will be more intuitive and trial error based. GPT-3 and DALL-E have given us a glimpse of what that will look like.

kaba0 5y ago
At most one will create an easily teachable AI they can utilize. But that’s most definitely not the same as training a NN by specifying input/layers, etc.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  That's what I meant. Trying to get the already-trained AI to do exactly what you want by modifying the prompt could be thought of as a type of programming and could become a skill-set in itself.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    I believe it will either be "fool-proof" and so intuitive as "Follow the wizard and click on the button you want to be clicked when this and that happens", or it won't happen. I think the biggest obstacle standing between the general populace and computers is the amount of detail one has to provide for a task to become programmable. But it comes up in real life as well.

thrower123 5y ago

Usually the pipe-dream is that some sort of graphical "no-code" or "low-code" system with a crippled DSL will be more benefit than hassle, and enable them to do things without needing to actually know how programming and the whole stack of abstractions they are sitting on work. It's one of those things that is always 20 years away, like nuclear fusion.

ant6n 5y ago
This exists in some form. Its called Alteryx, and I have seen non programmers work on gigabytes of table data using it.

throwaway2037 5y ago

And what is wrong with Excel -- functional programming by formulas, and procedural programming by VBA? Until mid 2000s, many Wall Street Investment banks were still running trading desks making 100M+ USD per year profits (each!) using only Excel for quoting and trading. I assume Biotech and Big Oil still use lots of Excel.