Comments on: The aesthetics of technology http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-aesthetics-of-technology/ Conceptual meandering Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:15:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: johan http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-aesthetics-of-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-1052 johan Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:14:32 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=583#comment-1052 An evolution from programming languages into natural languages is an interesting idea to ponder. I'm not sure if it's likely though. Some thoughts: 1) As computers permeate more and more of society and our social/industrial/recreational processes, will there also be an opposite pull, a tendency for human/natural language to become more like a formal language (programming language)? 2) Programming languages today are basically fancy ways of interacting with the turing machine/lambda calculus model. But we don't know what the fundamental model of the human brain is, if indeed there is such a model. The human brain may be able to stretch to simulate or work with the computer model, but can the computer stretch to simulate/work with the brain model? A fundamental AI question. 3) A machine that was programmable through a dialogue, like the one you described, might have to be familiar with the programmer in some ways, and know what that programmer usually means when he/she uses certain expressions. Would teamwork still function well if the program is programmed in this kind of style? Would people be able to discuss a program and share an understanding of exactly what it did? Would there be a canonical representation? In short, I think it's unclear that a programming language that mimicked a natural language closely would be a much better programming language, but it's an excellent topic for speculation. An evolution from programming languages into natural languages is an interesting idea to ponder. I’m not sure if it’s likely though. Some thoughts:
1) As computers permeate more and more of society and our social/industrial/recreational processes, will there also be an opposite pull, a tendency for human/natural language to become more like a formal language (programming language)?
2) Programming languages today are basically fancy ways of interacting with the turing machine/lambda calculus model. But we don’t know what the fundamental model of the human brain is, if indeed there is such a model. The human brain may be able to stretch to simulate or work with the computer model, but can the computer stretch to simulate/work with the brain model? A fundamental AI question.
3) A machine that was programmable through a dialogue, like the one you described, might have to be familiar with the programmer in some ways, and know what that programmer usually means when he/she uses certain expressions. Would teamwork still function well if the program is programmed in this kind of style? Would people be able to discuss a program and share an understanding of exactly what it did? Would there be a canonical representation?

In short, I think it’s unclear that a programming language that mimicked a natural language closely would be a much better programming language, but it’s an excellent topic for speculation.

]]> By: Chris http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/the-aesthetics-of-technology/comment-page-1/#comment-1024 Chris Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:00:45 +0000 http://www.monomorphic.org/wordpress/?p=583#comment-1024 I think it's interesting that the manifestation of the abstraction you've noted regarding computers shares many similarities (including this manifestation's name) with our natural method of communicating the workings and structures of those physical objects: language. Language represents our species' ability to form abstractions themselves, and perhaps language models as closely as possible our brain's internal representation of physical objects and concepts. Of course we communicate with machines with languages, and those languages have experienced a trend -- as you've noted -- of abstraction from low-level functionality to high-level functionality. It seems to me each successful iteration brings that computer language a little closer to our natural human language. Perhaps this trend will continue until our machines can successfully interpret natural human language. Imagine instead of an IDE, a "programmer" simply explains to his machine what he wants done (on as high or low of a level he chooses), and the machine responds with questions (if it necessarily needs anything clarified) to determine exactly what the programmer wants. Maybe "programming" would simply entail a conversation with a completely subservient reflection of a human mind. I think it’s interesting that the manifestation of the abstraction you’ve noted regarding computers shares many similarities (including this manifestation’s name) with our natural method of communicating the workings and structures of those physical objects: language. Language represents our species’ ability to form abstractions themselves, and perhaps language models as closely as possible our brain’s internal representation of physical objects and concepts.

Of course we communicate with machines with languages, and those languages have experienced a trend — as you’ve noted — of abstraction from low-level functionality to high-level functionality. It seems to me each successful iteration brings that computer language a little closer to our natural human language. Perhaps this trend will continue until our machines can successfully interpret natural human language.

Imagine instead of an IDE, a “programmer” simply explains to his machine what he wants done (on as high or low of a level he chooses), and the machine responds with questions (if it necessarily needs anything clarified) to determine exactly what the programmer wants. Maybe “programming” would simply entail a conversation with a completely subservient reflection of a human mind.

]]>