4 ms·
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 unambi
by 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 agoIndeed 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.