4 ms·
No, not what he means, he means code will be simple enough that a single person would be able to write it, if then knew what to write and will bootstrap itself
by O__________O 4y ago
No, not what he means, he means code will be simple enough that a single person would be able to write it, if then knew what to write and will bootstrap itself into existence for that simple code and vast amounts of external resources viable via humans, data, etc.
- gwern 4y agoOne interesting paper on estimating the complexity of code: http://www.offconvex.org/2021/04/07/ripvanwinkle/ http://www.offconvex.org/2021/04/07/ripvanwinkle/
- nomel 4y ago> a single person would be able to write it I don't understand the distinction. A single person can't really write a code now, if you'll disallow ML libraries. You need a complier, libraries, an OS, etc. The vast majority of us work in the highest levels of abstraction possible. That's where the practicality and productivity is. I don't think he's saying "Anyone will be able to sit down and write it in assembly". I think he's saying, it will make sense when it's written, with the abstractions as they are, with hindsight clarity of "we just had to...".
- mdonahoe 4y agoPretty sure that was Carmack's point. He said the code for AGI would be simpler, in terms of number of statements, than say the code for a web browser.