3 ms·

Mr McCarthy has had less direct impact. That is partly because he believed, wrongly, that minicomputers were a passing fad Actually, on a long enough timescale

by apu 15y ago

Mr McCarthy has had less direct impact. That is partly because he believed, wrongly, that minicomputers were a passing fad Actually, on a long enough timescale, he might very well have been right. Of course users will still have many devices with processing in them, but you could reasonably make the case that they won't be "computers" as the word is currently used. In fact, they allude to this later in the same paragraph!: Mr McCarthy always argued that the future lay in simple terminals hooked up remotely to a powerful mainframe which would both store and process data: a notion vindicated only recently, as cloud computing has spread So why was he wrong?

jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
And it could be the future of videogames[1]. [1]http://blog.onlive.com/2010/11/17/introducing-the-onlive-game-system/ http://blog.onlive.com/2010/11/17/introducing-the-onlive-gam...
pjriot 15y ago
I think they mean in the context of his lifetime. My brain appended a suffix of "so far" to that first sentence.
6ren 15y ago
Even today's smartphones aren't "simple" terminals (and probably much more powerful than the mainframes he envisioned). The closest to that model is SSH and Onlive gaming. The trend is for webapps to do as much processing on the client as possible, and use the backend mainly for data. So I think he was wrong (and the article is also wrong in saying he was vindicated). People have constantly predicted a mainframe model; but cheaper, simpler and more convenient processing devices keep seeping computing power towards the user. That is: processing power migrates to the edge of the network. But I don't think incorrect predictions of the far future should in any way be held against McCarthy. AI tangent: my thoughts on a "hivemind" vs "individuals" (mainframe vs. distributed) is similar to capitalism vs. a planned economy - individuals can collect data from their own viewpoint; form their own hypotheses; and act on them locally. Of course, theoretically, a hivemind with the same processing power could do the same with waldos; however, I think it would be difficult to resist consolidating hypotheses, and concentrating on the best ones (as large companies kill off small projects that later disrupt them). Whereas, individuals will do things their own way - and some of them will come up with something better (like ants searching for sugar; or startups seeking disruption). Most of them end up dead of course. There's also practical concerns favouring distribution: network latency/bandwidth; power consumption and redundancy (not all eggs in one basket).

by apu 15y ago

jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago

And it could be the future of videogames[1]. [1]http://blog.onlive.com/2010/11/17/introducing-the-onlive-game-system/ http://blog.onlive.com/2010/11/17/introducing-the-onlive-gam...

pjriot 15y ago

I think they mean in the context of his lifetime. My brain appended a suffix of "so far" to that first sentence.

6ren 15y ago

Even today's smartphones aren't "simple" terminals (and probably much more powerful than the mainframes he envisioned). The closest to that model is SSH and Onlive gaming. The trend is for webapps to do as much processing on the client as possible, and use the backend mainly for data. So I think he was wrong (and the article is also wrong in saying he was vindicated). People have constantly predicted a mainframe model; but cheaper, simpler and more convenient processing devices keep seeping computing power towards the user. That is: processing power migrates to the edge of the network. But I don't think incorrect predictions of the far future should in any way be held against McCarthy. AI tangent: my thoughts on a "hivemind" vs "individuals" (mainframe vs. distributed) is similar to capitalism vs. a planned economy - individuals can collect data from their own viewpoint; form their own hypotheses; and act on them locally. Of course, theoretically, a hivemind with the same processing power could do the same with waldos; however, I think it would be difficult to resist consolidating hypotheses, and concentrating on the best ones (as large companies kill off small projects that later disrupt them). Whereas, individuals will do things their own way - and some of them will come up with something better (like ants searching for sugar; or startups seeking disruption). Most of them end up dead of course. There's also practical concerns favouring distribution: network latency/bandwidth; power consumption and redundancy (not all eggs in one basket).