James G. Sack (jim) wrote:
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
Worse for humans. The corollary, DAWB ("Don't Allow Anything Bad") is a
great excuse to start a war: KABP ("Kill All Bad People").
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
