> They’ll just need good higher-level design thinking so they can clearly, logically explain the computer’s task. ... and how do you develop that skill? While

> They’ll just need good higher-level design thinking so they can clearly, logically explain the computer’s task. ... and how do you develop that skill? While the "search all existing code" approach may lead to improved security (for example) if such considerations are factored into the search, I'm unsure how this would permit us to do something a part of which has never been done before. The article probably does a disservice to the project by projecting it in the wrong direction which hides other very significant benefits it can bring to the table today. IMO, Wolfram Language deals with the human interface in a much better way than whatever (I think) searching through code can give you. WA generates multiple programs that are possible interpretations of a given query and runs them all, or a pruned set of them, depending on out-of-query context (at least as far as I understand it). This is possible only for those cases without side effects. If some imperative code for calculating prime numbers surreptitiously has an instruction to launch a rocket, how would a naive user know? In other words, such an intelligent system will need to distinguish between "doing something" and "an instruction to do something" - which is basically imperative languages versus monads. The vast majority of code is written imperatively and this kind of eager execution of multiple possible interpretations of an ambiguous instruction would be unsafe without that ... at least unsafe without the ability of the "programmer" to read the resultant code before accepting it.