5 ms·
If the hypothetical high level language doesn't allow for ambiguous meanings, you can write a compiler for it and you don't need the AI. (Not saying you're wro
by flir 3y ago
If the hypothetical high level language doesn't allow for ambiguous meanings, you can write a compiler for it and you don't need the AI.
(Not saying you're wrong about "higher and higher levels of abstraction" - that's the way it's always been - but the unique promise of AI is the ability to deal with ambiguity in the requirements).
- UK-Al05 3y agoAmbiguity in requirements is where the majority of bugs come from now. So I don't think AI would improve things.
- flir 3y agoAssuming a (hypothetical, doubtful) AI as good as a human programmer, I think the advantage becomes speed. Think of it like a REPL that you program in English. Patching ambiguities with "Oh, I didn't mean X, I meant Y" becomes the work of minutes, not hours.
- skydhash 3y agoIn this case, you don’t really need AI. People like Forth and Lisp because you can built an efficient DSL which you can converse with. What people have trouble with is formalism, and logical and abstract reasoning.
- internet101010 3y agoExactly. There will be a lot less of the "we will have to look into it" 2-day lag time.