That's great news! We desperately need fresh air. As you know, the way a
problem is framed bounds its solutions. Do you already know what problems
to work on or are you soliciting proposals?
Jonathan
From: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Cc:
Date:
Hi Jonathan
We are not soliciting proposals, but we like to hear the opinions of others on
burning issues and better directions in computing.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Jonathan Edwards edwa...@csail.mit.edu
To: fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 4:44
Hi Kevin
At some point I'll gather enough brain cells to do the needed edits and get the
report on the Viewpoints server.
Dan Amelang is in the process of writing his thesis on Nile, and we will
probably put Nile out in a more general form after that. (A nice project would
be to do Nile in
So what will computing be in a hundred years?
Will we still painstakingly construct systems with a keyboard interface one
letter at a time ?
And what systems will we use ? And for what ?
Will we use computers for slashing virtual fruits and post images of our
breakfast on Facebook version 1000,2
We will have singularity and real AI? We may indeed, or perhaps the last 50
years will replay itself. Progress in artificial intelligence has moved along
at a fraction of expectations.
I expect that there will be an incredible increase of eye candy, and when you
strip it down to the
what will computing be in a hundred years?
We'll have singularity - i.e. software and technology will be developed by
AIs. But there will also be a lot of corporate influence on which direction
that goes; there will likely be repeated conflicts regarding privacy,
ownership, computational rights,
I doubt there will be a clear instant of oh, this, just now, was
singularity. The ability even of a great AI to improve technologies is
limited by its ability to hypothesize and experiment, and understand
requirements. More likely, we'll see a lot of automated thinking
(constraint solvers,
Maybe relevant.
Reading through this now... the findings seem to be broadly depressing.
Notably: I get the sense that only commercial products were part of the study.
I'm not familiar with any of them; in other words: Logo, Etoys, and Scratch
were absent.
Full text:
I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important
context. My words below...
On Sep 3, 2013, at 3:04 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Even better if the languages are good for exploration by genetic programming
- i.e. easily sliced, spliced, rearranged,
With Forth, you are probably reaching for the definition of a concatenative
language like Joy.
APL, J, K, etc. would also qualify.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Casey Ransberger
casey.obrie...@gmail.comwrote:
I've heavily abridged your message David; sorry if I've dropped important
Factor would be another decent example of a concatenative language.
But I think arrowized programming models would work better. They aren't
limited to a stack, and instead can compute rich types that can be
evaluated as documents or diagrams. Further, they're really easy to model
in a
Yes, in the case of FORTH, the concatenative property is what's interesting in
this regard.
It yields a kind of syntaxlessness that's interesting. I have to admit no
real familiarity with APL (outside of some stunningly elegant solutions I've
read to problems on Project Euler!)
Thanks for
Sorry, I've missed a beat somewhere. Arrowized? What's this bit with arrows?
I saw the term arrow earlier and I think I've assumed that it was some slang
for the FRP thing (if you think about it, that makes some sense.) But starting
with intuitive assumptions is usually a bad plan, so I'd love
Hey Alan,
With regards to burning issues and better directions, I want to
highlight the communicating with aliens problem as worth of remembering.
Machines figuring out on their own a protocol and goals for communication.
This might relate to cooperating solvers aspect of your work.
Cheers,
Yes, the communication with aliens problem -- in many different aspects -- is
going to be a big theme for VPRI over the next few years.
Cheers,
Alan
From: Tristan Slominski tristan.slomin...@gmail.com
To: Alan Kay alan.n...@yahoo.com; Fundamentals of New
Arrows are essentially a formalization of box-and-wire paradigms.
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Haskell/Understanding_arrows
Arrows represent a rigid structure for dataflow, but are just expressive
enough for non-linear composition of subprograms (i.e. parallel pipelines
that branch and merge).
16 matches
Mail list logo
