3 ms·
Probably because natural language will supercede progranming language soon: https://youtu.be/PgT8tPChbqc https://youtu.be/PgT8tPChbqc
by 7373737373 4y ago
Probably because natural language will supercede progranming language soon: https://youtu.be/PgT8tPChbqc https://youtu.be/PgT8tPChbqc
- plagiarist 4y agoThis was not on the horizon when smartphones were becoming popular.
- zabzonk 4y agodo you know how long people have being saying that?
- anonzzzies 4y agoThere is a computer chronicles on archive.org where they say this. I don’t remember the year but early 80s I would say.
- zabzonk 4y agoit was a rhetorical question. actually, cobol was supposed to be easy for buisness people to create applications in a "natural language". so, considerably before the 80s, though there were other developments aimed at doing so then, all of which failed miserably.
- anonzzzies 4y agoI didn’t try to answer the question; I am agreeing with you and pointing out a concrete example that they said this already early 80s. Also it’s entertaining too (re)watch the computer chronicles. LLMs will change a lot of this though.
- leobg 4y agoIs not natural language being superseded by specialized language in pretty much every specialized, competitive niche? I mean, even with large language models, isn’t there a whole new area forming around “prompt engineering“? Natural language is just very imprecise. It relies on shared context. It’s not even working, particularly well between humans if they don’t know each other well, as you can see in all forms of politics, and actually not even that well in many marriages. Often enough, in the end, you have to call in the specialists to figure out what was actually said, and what wasn’t… So that my bank account doesn’t rely on this technology, but on computer code and math, that’s not a step backwards, in my opinion, but a step forward.