3 ms·

I agree - we should not try to make computers that understand us better - we should learn to understand computers better. I argue that software is a form of li

I agree - we should not try to make computers that understand us better - we should learn to understand computers better. I argue that software is a form of literacy (Hell I'm rewriting a book ok it for the third time). But we don't say "instead of novels let's just stick to rearranging cut out panels from Marvel back issues." We spend years training children to handle words and speech and presenting arguments - and we need to spend more on empirical testing and skepticism. Literacy is a technology - and we bend our minds to encompass it - and we should expect no less of software

dclowd9901 3y ago
Is, though, the literacy of software strictly necessary, or an artifact of lower technology? Isn’t it the case that you can use plain English to explain _exactly_ what a piece of software does, and as such, you can, _exactly_ supplant software with plain English? I think everyone in this thread is patting their backs right now about the necessity of precise syntax and symbology to express programs, but that’s still missing the point. Literacy and communication is built around the ways our minds already work (indeed, it’s often an artifact of a culture distilled to its essence). We _don’t_ need computer language symbols and grammar and syntax — it’s just another form of expression, and definitely not one that fits the human mind nicely.
- kaba0 3y ago
  > Isn’t it the case that you can use plain English to explain _exactly_ what a piece of software does, and as such, you can, _exactly_ supplant software with plain English? Is it any easier to do that than to “program”? In my mind that’s the exact same thing, just a different, less syntactically strict programming language. Writing good specification is crazy hard, and it usually incomplete, so you end up going back and forth with the human compiler (the programmer) to get a common understanding. One might even argue that a cleaned up, domain-specific language actually helps mutual understanding. It’s not always the case that written text is easier to comprehend — see for example math notation.
  - xp84 3y ago
    I've been thinking about this argument and while I agree that having a symbolic construct ("Code") that strictly models the solution is ideal, arriving at that model via a single 'layer' of code which must have been written perfectly by a programmer is a big hurdle given the small fraction of humans who seem to have an aptitude for programming (just like with advanced math too). It's probably a less versatile strategy than iteratively building it assisted by AI guided by natural language. I think in the future, the AI agent will probably code the application, asking its human "PM" partner to clarify each ambiguity, and adjusting as it goes. Finally, it should be able to generate charts, narratives, and diagrams to explain how the created application works, for validation of the solution by a non-programmer.
- walleeee 3y ago
  > We _don’t_ need computer language symbols and grammar and syntax — it’s just another form of expression, and definitely not one that fits the human mind nicely A computer is a machine that implements a particular form of mathematics. We happen to use them for fuzzy, imprecisely defined tasks, thanks to mountains of convenient abstraction, but we do very much need precise mathematical language for other classes of problems! A language is a vehicle. If we need to build a website, natural language specs might get us where we want to go. If we need to build a rigorous model of some phenomenon, natural language is often an obstacle. There is a reason mathematicians invent and adopt formalisms: they extend our capacity for precise computation, mental or digital.

dclowd9901 3y ago

Is, though, the literacy of software strictly necessary, or an artifact of lower technology? Isn’t it the case that you can use plain English to explain _exactly_ what a piece of software does, and as such, you can, _exactly_ supplant software with plain English? I think everyone in this thread is patting their backs right now about the necessity of precise syntax and symbology to express programs, but that’s still missing the point. Literacy and communication is built around the ways our minds already work (indeed, it’s often an artifact of a culture distilled to its essence). We _don’t_ need computer language symbols and grammar and syntax — it’s just another form of expression, and definitely not one that fits the human mind nicely.

kaba0 3y ago
> Isn’t it the case that you can use plain English to explain _exactly_ what a piece of software does, and as such, you can, _exactly_ supplant software with plain English? Is it any easier to do that than to “program”? In my mind that’s the exact same thing, just a different, less syntactically strict programming language. Writing good specification is crazy hard, and it usually incomplete, so you end up going back and forth with the human compiler (the programmer) to get a common understanding. One might even argue that a cleaned up, domain-specific language actually helps mutual understanding. It’s not always the case that written text is easier to comprehend — see for example math notation.
- xp84 3y ago
  I've been thinking about this argument and while I agree that having a symbolic construct ("Code") that strictly models the solution is ideal, arriving at that model via a single 'layer' of code which must have been written perfectly by a programmer is a big hurdle given the small fraction of humans who seem to have an aptitude for programming (just like with advanced math too). It's probably a less versatile strategy than iteratively building it assisted by AI guided by natural language. I think in the future, the AI agent will probably code the application, asking its human "PM" partner to clarify each ambiguity, and adjusting as it goes. Finally, it should be able to generate charts, narratives, and diagrams to explain how the created application works, for validation of the solution by a non-programmer.
walleeee 3y ago
> We _don’t_ need computer language symbols and grammar and syntax — it’s just another form of expression, and definitely not one that fits the human mind nicely A computer is a machine that implements a particular form of mathematics. We happen to use them for fuzzy, imprecisely defined tasks, thanks to mountains of convenient abstraction, but we do very much need precise mathematical language for other classes of problems! A language is a vehicle. If we need to build a website, natural language specs might get us where we want to go. If we need to build a rigorous model of some phenomenon, natural language is often an obstacle. There is a reason mathematicians invent and adopt formalisms: they extend our capacity for precise computation, mental or digital.