E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
1–10 of 71 posts
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#2If we don't keep trying to make AI, we're never gonna get there. I'm not saying data mining is AI. I'm saying human brains do data mining too, but differently, and figuring out how is what might come of all this.
Wolfram-Alpha-style natural language programming actually isn't that bad because it's a dialogue. The thing tells you its assumptions, so you're back to formal representations you can deal with. Natural language is mostly statistics, also known as guesswork. A machine can guess better than humans. Google proves that by suggesting "torrent" every time you search for a movie title.
Dijkstra fears a world where the lack of formalisms prevents progress. That's why he likes formalisms. I do too, maybe not for these exact reasons. Anyway, I take formalisms as a given because they've always been there my whole life.
Formalisms can be impractically formal. The level of precision required by machines is beyond even what most mathematicians are used to casually (i.e., pen and paper, or at a blackboard). If you had to do math like you write code, mathematicians would go bonkers. Include this, type-cast that, ... nah, everyone knows what this and that is supposed to mean, right?
A little NLP could make it easier to command computers. A little more NLP could turn machines into really useful slaves. AI would be opening a can of worms few in this world are prepared to deal with.
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#3A moment isn't such a long time anymore, not for compute clusters anyway. If we don't keep trying to make AI, we're never gonna get there. I'm not saying data mining is AI. I'm saying human brains do data mining too, but differently, and figuring out how is what might come of all this. Wolfram-Alpha-style natural language programming actually isn't that bad because it's a dialogue . The thing tells you its assumption…
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#4A moment isn't such a long time anymore, not for compute clusters anyway. If we don't keep trying to make AI, we're never gonna get there. I'm not saying data mining is AI. I'm saying human brains do data mining too, but differently, and figuring out how is what might come of all this. Wolfram-Alpha-style natural language programming actually isn't that bad because it's a dialogue . The thing tells you its assumption…
This man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and others.
Wisdom is certainly something to take from, but embodying the limits imposed by someone as a roadblock to onself isn't the way to innovation.
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#5Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#6NLP 2 : Natural Language Processing : modeling and processing of the natural language phenomenon
NLP 1 requires advancement in NLP 2 to a significant level of accuracy which in turn requires the accuracy and care of the formal symbolism of lower level programming automaton. Having said that, the progress has been slow which often times leads to denouncement of pursuit of research in the NLP field.
The article is 6 years old and a lot has happened in terms of both processing power capabilities that an individual has access to now (cloud computing) and amount of data available (online information explosion, particularly social media streams) which used to be a bottleneck earlier. This opens up a huge opportunity for breakthrough in NLPs by mathematicians as mentioned by Yuri yesterday at Web 2.0 Summit. AT&T's voice activated remote ( http://www.research.att.com/projects/WATSONASR/index.html ) is an example of natural language programming that is achievable today.
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#7NLP 1 : Natural Language Programming : ability to instruct a machine using your natural language NLP 2 : Natural Language Processing : modeling and processing of the natural language phenomenon NLP 1 requires advancement in NLP 2 to a significant level of accuracy which in turn requires the accuracy and care of the formal symbolism of lower level programming automaton. Having said that, the progress has been slow whi…
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#8I was thinking about lojban ( http://lojban.org ) when I read this. I mean we do have programming languages, which are unambiguous. Why should we not alter our "natural", i.e. legacy based, communication when dealing with computers?
Or when dealing with each other, for that matter. In Lojban, it is grammatically incorrect for someone to give me vague directions like "we are at the pub to the left of the central plaza". They would instead have to say something like "we-not-you are now at the only pub to the left (when seen from the cinema) of the only plaza".
Imagine political debates where imprecise language and double meaning are much harder to express. Mmm...
.i mi batci le mlatu
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
This man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and others.
It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding. Wisdom is certainly something to take from, but embodying the limits imposed by someone as a roadblock to onself isn't the way to innovation.
Please name some examples. How often is sometimes? What is their probability of success compared to that of domain experts?
Re: E.W.Dijkstra: On the foolishness of "natural language programming"
#10I was thinking about lojban ( http://lojban.org ) when I read this. I mean we do have programming languages, which are unambiguous. Why should we not alter our "natural", i.e. legacy based, communication when dealing with computers?
> Why should we not alter our "natural", i.e. legacy based, communication when dealing with computers? Or when dealing with each other, for that matter. In Lojban, it is grammatically incorrect for someone to give me vague directions like "we are at the pub to the left of the central plaza". They would instead have to say something like "we- not-you are now at the only pub to the left ( when seen from the cinema ) of…
Which plaza? Just because you said "the only plaza" doesn't make it unambiguous. There certainly exist more than one plaza in any given city.