305b283f

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   I'll respond to your points, but was the ad-hominem really necessary? > In the end, natural language assumes a broad swath of "common sense" that computers do not have yet. Absolutely. I'm not at all saying that we&#x
2. 2.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   An error rate of 1/1,000 or so, with almost all of them being recoverable errors? I'll take that. :)
3. 3.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   > you want John Doe to delete something from the system? He might try to unplug the harddrive, maybe that's what he thinks "deleting" means. Highly unlikely that someone familiar with the system (even in an informal way) w
4. 4.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   Of course you are technically correct, however I retreat back to my main point: we do this every day and it works just fine. Certainly not perfectly of course, but go and ask people who use some sort of CRUD system that used to be manual
5. 5.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   > I think we are still a long way from understanding what really happens inside our brains. Agreed 100% - I'm in no way saying that it's easy or will be done in our lifetime or the next 10 lifetimes - just that it's not im
6. 6.▲
   by 305b283f 12y ago

   Agreed. It seems an appalling number of people agree with Dijkstra here - "we not only don't need natural language, we don't even want it." I'm sorry, but if I can express to a human being a set of directions to fil