4 ms·

Here's a different hot take: GPT/LLM/AI will eventually make all languages obsolete. You tell it what you want and it'll just output machine code directly.

1attice 3y ago
See, this is the sort of hot take that you make if you haven't done either law or philosophy. Using natural language, it is incredibly difficult to make unambiguous statements. For most of the twentieth century, the problem was regarded as so severe that analytic philosophers would encode their most important points in symbolic logic. And it's not like we have one symbolic logic here; there are literally dozens of higher-order logics, each with their own syntax, and some of which are mutually incompatible. Meanwhile, complex, difficult-to-master conlangs such as Ikthuil and Lojban have flourished in pockets of the philosopherse simply because they provide, essentially, the kind of clarity that any basic programming language provides. I can easily imagine AI/ML inertia, as OP wonders about, and I can also easily imagine forms of e.g. Lojban, Ikthuil, or a mishmash of several higher-order symbolic logics becoming the basis for a new ML-informed programming language, but if your imagination has you talking to the computer the way you'd talk to a subordinate, in English or some other natural language, then do I have a monkey's paw for you.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cyclotron3k 3y ago
  Indeed it's hard to make unambiguous statements. But somehow business leaders do, and subordinates are able to make reasonable assumptions, ask clarifying questions and produce something that approximates what the business requested. Perhaps riddled with bugs and way past deadline, but ultimately something that produces value. If you don't think that's ever going to be possible with AI (notice how I used the word "eventually" in my post) then I don't know what to say to you.
marginalia_nu 3y ago
A big reason we have programming languages is because natural language is often ambiguous. ChatGPT does nothing to alter that. It's like the joke: The programmer's wife said: "Please go to the store and buy a carton of milk and if they have eggs, get a dozen." He came back with 12 cartons of milk. She said, "why did you buy twelve cartons of milk?" He responds "they had eggs" (there are rare features like this in some parsers, like dangling else, but they are considered design problems)
- flangola7 3y ago
  The executives deciding what software gets built are not writing code. The application goes from 0 LoC to production-ready machine code via only natural language instructions. Currently the intermediary processor are human developers, humans are adept at grasping what is actually intended and asking clarifying questions - but there's no reason this couldn't be done by a ChatGPT-like machine in the future.
  - jeezfrk 3y ago
    There's a lot of reasons ChatGPT could neither ask clarifying questions nor get any examples of the clarifying questions nor interpret all the levels of code and purposes of code-that-was-never-written-before. Language does not handle most business process nor efficiency goal and even security restrictions. People and logic do. Little of that language (!) is in the written word. It is done mostly by failures and historic-obvious-cultural practice. Emulation does not mean 'comprehension' of all the purposes involved in craftsmanship of handling data for business or for even computation. Most AI-solved problems are search reduction for spoon fed problem areas of data.
    - vba616 3y ago
      Asking clarifying questions is not always socially acceptable! Then what? Some random things that seem difficult to get an AI to deal with: 1) Things that people expect you to know by observation, but not be told and not to say. 2) Things that people expect you to know/adhere to, in spite of being told something different. 3) Strategically creating the impression that you do or do not have the ability to change your course of action.
afavour 3y ago
So it’s all but impossible to check if the unknowable AI model has actually output the logic you want? And you just plug that untrusted machine code directly into the metal? I knew the AI hype machine was real but I didn’t realise it had replaced decades of computing security already.
- cyclotron3k 3y ago
  If you read my post carefully, you'll see I call it a "hot take", which should indicate it's a bit tongue in cheek. But more importantly, you'll notice that I used the word "eventually", with implies that I recognise that these capabilities are currently beyond us, without putting a timeline on when I think these capabilities could arise. That said, it doesn't seem to be outside the realm of possibility. Which is why I said it.

1attice 3y ago

See, this is the sort of hot take that you make if you haven't done either law or philosophy. Using natural language, it is incredibly difficult to make unambiguous statements. For most of the twentieth century, the problem was regarded as so severe that analytic philosophers would encode their most important points in symbolic logic. And it's not like we have one symbolic logic here; there are literally dozens of higher-order logics, each with their own syntax, and some of which are mutually incompatible. Meanwhile, complex, difficult-to-master conlangs such as Ikthuil and Lojban have flourished in pockets of the philosopherse simply because they provide, essentially, the kind of clarity that any basic programming language provides. I can easily imagine AI/ML inertia, as OP wonders about, and I can also easily imagine forms of e.g. Lojban, Ikthuil, or a mishmash of several higher-order symbolic logics becoming the basis for a new ML-informed programming language, but if your imagination has you talking to the computer the way you'd talk to a subordinate, in English or some other natural language, then do I have a monkey's paw for you.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cyclotron3k 3y ago
Indeed it's hard to make unambiguous statements. But somehow business leaders do, and subordinates are able to make reasonable assumptions, ask clarifying questions and produce something that approximates what the business requested. Perhaps riddled with bugs and way past deadline, but ultimately something that produces value. If you don't think that's ever going to be possible with AI (notice how I used the word "eventually" in my post) then I don't know what to say to you.

marginalia_nu 3y ago

A big reason we have programming languages is because natural language is often ambiguous. ChatGPT does nothing to alter that. It's like the joke: The programmer's wife said: "Please go to the store and buy a carton of milk and if they have eggs, get a dozen." He came back with 12 cartons of milk. She said, "why did you buy twelve cartons of milk?" He responds "they had eggs" (there are rare features like this in some parsers, like dangling else, but they are considered design problems)

flangola7 3y ago
The executives deciding what software gets built are not writing code. The application goes from 0 LoC to production-ready machine code via only natural language instructions. Currently the intermediary processor are human developers, humans are adept at grasping what is actually intended and asking clarifying questions - but there's no reason this couldn't be done by a ChatGPT-like machine in the future.
- jeezfrk 3y ago
  There's a lot of reasons ChatGPT could neither ask clarifying questions nor get any examples of the clarifying questions nor interpret all the levels of code and purposes of code-that-was-never-written-before. Language does not handle most business process nor efficiency goal and even security restrictions. People and logic do. Little of that language (!) is in the written word. It is done mostly by failures and historic-obvious-cultural practice. Emulation does not mean 'comprehension' of all the purposes involved in craftsmanship of handling data for business or for even computation. Most AI-solved problems are search reduction for spoon fed problem areas of data.
  - vba616 3y ago
    Asking clarifying questions is not always socially acceptable! Then what? Some random things that seem difficult to get an AI to deal with: 1) Things that people expect you to know by observation, but not be told and not to say. 2) Things that people expect you to know/adhere to, in spite of being told something different. 3) Strategically creating the impression that you do or do not have the ability to change your course of action.

afavour 3y ago

So it’s all but impossible to check if the unknowable AI model has actually output the logic you want? And you just plug that untrusted machine code directly into the metal? I knew the AI hype machine was real but I didn’t realise it had replaced decades of computing security already.

cyclotron3k 3y ago
If you read my post carefully, you'll see I call it a "hot take", which should indicate it's a bit tongue in cheek. But more importantly, you'll notice that I used the word "eventually", with implies that I recognise that these capabilities are currently beyond us, without putting a timeline on when I think these capabilities could arise. That said, it doesn't seem to be outside the realm of possibility. Which is why I said it.