Doug LaRue wrote:
> ** Reply to message from "James G. Sack (jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 10
> Apr 2008 13:23:59 -0700
>
>> The statement
>> Humans are way easier to 'program' than computers.
>> is interesting to interpret.
>>
>> Maybe:
>> agreement: it is easier to compose meaningful instructions to humans
>> disagreement: it is harder to get humans to obey instructions
>
> what do you mean by "obey instructions"? The intent? Because if that is
> the case, how many times have you "instructed" your computer to do
> one thing and it does something else? Ctl-Alt-Del ;-)
DWIM implementation is considered faulty. :-)
Actually, you could refine that, I think, to say that computers are not
yet nearly as good at interpreting natural language instructions as are
humans. When we get there, we will have to consider disobedient
computers, I guess. "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
>
> The aspect of computer programming where it does EXACTLY as you
> programmed it is what draws many to it. No grey-ness there unless you're
> into fuzzy logic and the likes.
You'll have to ask BLQ about "if,then,sometimes".
>.. Tell it to burn out the display unintentually
> and it does it. And you know where to point the finger. Humans can often
> follow the intent if they have enough drive, willingness, or threats to do so.
Better(?) than DWIM would be DDAB ("Don't Do Anything Bad"). Hmmm, I
don't know; that gives computers headaches which cause them to
self-destruct (at least in the movies).
Regards,
..jim
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
