Scientists at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology are working on solving how to program computers using natural language. They claim to have made a significant breakthrough with respect to how the ordering of things via natural language can be correctly interpreted by a computer.
This really makes me step back and think. Right now there are thousands, if not tens-of-thousands or even more people who are toiling away working on computer code to do all sorts of things. They have to learn the arcane aspects of computer programming languages and spend hours toiling away.
But imagine if all that could change drastically. Imagine if you could collect your thoughts about a program and then simply tell it to a computer. The computer might even interact with you, asking you to verify things, telling you if its not clear or doesn’t understand something.
Why couldn’t it be this way? Is there really any logical reason that making an application has to involve arcane programming? Isn’t it enough to logically think about something and then simply tell a computer to do it, then later to test it and even let the computer see what it is doing and suggest and make improvements?
This doesn’t necessarily mean that one would not still have to thoroughly understand the structure of a program and all the components necessary to make it work, but it might be a way to free someone to focus on the logic of the application they want to create and not get bogged down in arcane details.
For example, one might tell the computer that there will be a database for the app, that the database will need to consist of certain fields, and then go on to describe how for example the interface of the application will interact with fields in the database.
But if the computer is truly smart, it could then take all the specifications and information provided to it and decide what is the most optimal way to implement the program. For example it can decide what is the best database backend to use for the program.
It can then watch itself running the application and if necessary make changes. There may be an increase in the amount of resources necessary to continue running the application over time and it can suggest and implement upgrading various components when necessary.
It would know how to improve the application, what any weak points were, etc. All these things are determined by algorithms hence there is no reason that a program could do them.
There could even be other programs which check programs which make programs. All humans would need to do is have a clear understanding of what they are designing and how it should function in various cases.
—————————————————————————-
Not only all this. But think of how complicated things are now. Even things like communication and e-mail can be cumbersome. There are so many details to worry about. Look at the settings for an e-mail client app for example. Why, in the future, couldn’t all this be simplified? There is just e-mail that is available to you when you want and on whatever device you want. You don’t have to worry about setting it up, only initializing your devices when you start using them.
I think the only way for this to happen is for there to be open standards. I do not think that this kind of future could arise with proprietary companies fighting over niches. This type of human right or freedom is very similar to what Edward Snowden is talking about when he explains why its wrong for people to not care about government intrusion because “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
When you say, ‘I have nothing to hide,’ you’re saying, ‘I don’t care about this right.’ You’re saying, ‘I don’t have this right, because I’ve got to the point where I have to justify it.’ The way rights work is, the government has to justify its intrusion into your rights.
source: techcrunch.com; “Edward Snowden’s Privacy Tips: “Get Rid Of Dropbox,” Avoid Facebook And Google”
The stuff that Richard Stallman talks about underlies this. These freedoms are not just niceties, they actually underlie important technological advancements.
——————————————————————–
As technology advances, it is becoming clearer that not only is there the concept of the rights of the individual in the material- and cyber-senses, but there is also the right of human knowledge itself. Human knowledge itself exists independent of any one person and, like and person or group of persons, has a right to be free. It also has a right to progress, to evolve. No one has the right to impede the fundamental right of human knowledge to exist and to evolve and progress.
People may get paid money because they are experts with one particular area of knowledge or another. They may be managers, caretakers, administrators. But they do not own it. They do not subjugate it.
This is fundamentally different than the sick idea of “I got there first” which underlies so much rot in society. The person who makes a big claim of getting there first, who sticks their flag in the ground and immediately starts building barbed-wire fences is not a caretaker. Not an expert. Not an administrator, nor a teacher. They are a parasite.
Sadly, this society seems to be going in the parasitic direction much more than the expert/caretaker direction.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.