Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A World Run with Code

blog.stephenwolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 116 posts

Re: A World Run with Code

#21

Post by OneWordSoln »

memory_grep wrote: post #16

> And, yes, there’s only basically one full computational language that exists in the world today—and it’s the one I’ve spent the past three decades building—the Wolfram Language. :/

If he means, from a mathematical point of view, Mathematica's ability to both symbolically and numerically solve advanced mathematical systems of equations, he's not technically wrong, even if his oversized ego oozes out of every word he utters.

If, however, he's talking about general computational systems vis a vis creating programs to run on today's microprocessors, he has obviously drunk too much of his own kool-aid.

Re: A World Run with Code

#22

Post by tlb »

raz32dust wrote: post #20
daenz wrote: post #15

>Right now, most of what the computers in the world do is to execute tasks we basically initiate. But increasingly our world is going to involve computers autonomously interacting with each other, according to computational contracts. Once something happens in the world—some computational fact is established—we’ll quickly see cascades of computational contracts executing. And there’ll be all sorts of complicated intr…

In the same vein, "Human intelligence" led to the 2008 crash. Human's aren't infallible either. My problem with this argument is that there is no logical basis for how exactly human intelligence is different. Computers aren't there yet in most domains, but there is no evidence to say they can't get there. How soon is anybody's guess right now. While AGI might be far off, I can certainly imagine computers running larg…

Qualitatively, humans are likely to say, "Whoa! Hold on. This doesn't make sense." when presented with unreasonable data, while algorithms are likely to proceed and do whatever.

We don't have good programming abstractions for "This doesn't make sense." You want something between proceeding and aborting.

Re: A World Run with Code

#23

Post by JackFr »

jwr wrote: post #11

I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to…

> I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to, not because I want to.

He is a bona fide genius. But it's difficult to tell if his jarring references to the the 'Wolfram Language' and 'Wolfram Alpha' are simple, cynical selling, or if his vanity has blinded him into thinking the 'Wolfram Language' is a notable accomplishment on par with the other useful work he's done with physics, cellular automata and Mathematica.

In general, I am a conflicted fan. By many accounts he's an unpleasant person, and having read _A New Kind of Science_ his Principle of Computational Equivalance is real hand-wavy and not terribly rigorous.

And yet whenever he's mentioned in an HN story I always need to read it.

Re: A World Run with Code

#25

Post by jerf »

raz32dust wrote: post #20
daenz wrote: post #15

>Right now, most of what the computers in the world do is to execute tasks we basically initiate. But increasingly our world is going to involve computers autonomously interacting with each other, according to computational contracts. Once something happens in the world—some computational fact is established—we’ll quickly see cascades of computational contracts executing. And there’ll be all sorts of complicated intr…

In the same vein, "Human intelligence" led to the 2008 crash. Human's aren't infallible either. My problem with this argument is that there is no logical basis for how exactly human intelligence is different. Computers aren't there yet in most domains, but there is no evidence to say they can't get there. How soon is anybody's guess right now. While AGI might be far off, I can certainly imagine computers running larg…

"My problem with this argument is that there is no logical basis for how exactly human intelligence is different."

I can give you a partial answer, which is that human intelligence is somewhat slower, which mitigates the ability to crash the entire economy in 15 seconds. That's why a stock market can crash in 15 seconds nowadays, but "the housing market" can't. This gives people some time to do some things about it with some degree of thought, rather than all the agents in the system suddenly being forced to act in whatever manner they can afford to act with 15 milliseconds of computation to decide.

Re: A World Run with Code

#26

Post by dwaltrip »

raz32dust wrote: post #20
daenz wrote: post #15

>Right now, most of what the computers in the world do is to execute tasks we basically initiate. But increasingly our world is going to involve computers autonomously interacting with each other, according to computational contracts. Once something happens in the world—some computational fact is established—we’ll quickly see cascades of computational contracts executing. And there’ll be all sorts of complicated intr…

In the same vein, "Human intelligence" led to the 2008 crash. Human's aren't infallible either. My problem with this argument is that there is no logical basis for how exactly human intelligence is different. Computers aren't there yet in most domains, but there is no evidence to say they can't get there. How soon is anybody's guess right now. While AGI might be far off, I can certainly imagine computers running larg…

Without some robust general intelligence in the loop, whether that be AGI or human, computers will always have countless strange, unpredictable, and devastating failure modes, especially if given increasing responsibility.

This is the reason why few systems of significant complexity and risk exist today without humans in the loop.

Re: A World Run with Code

#27

Post by zach_garwood »

OneWordSoln wrote: post #19
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I have heard, what you're missing is Wolfram's ego. That's why he magnifies the importance of what he has done.

I mean, Mathematica is a truly great, great piece of software, but his "New Kind of Science" was both utterly worthless and a fantastic treatise on how a person's grandiose religion of self leads to utter delusion.

I started to read it when I college, and read hundreds of pages into it before I started to realize that there was nothing there. The entire book can be summed up as "complexity arises from multiple iterations on simplicity" and, like, you can teach that to a middle schooler in a day, no need for a thousands of pages-long tome.

Re: A World Run with Code

#28

Post by sgillen »

OneWordSoln wrote: post #21
memory_grep wrote: post #16

> And, yes, there’s only basically one full computational language that exists in the world today—and it’s the one I’ve spent the past three decades building—the Wolfram Language. :/

If he means, from a mathematical point of view, Mathematica's ability to both symbolically and numerically solve advanced mathematical systems of equations, he's not technically wrong, even if his oversized ego oozes out of every word he utters. If, however, he's talking about general computational systems vis a vis creating programs to run on today's microprocessors, he has obviously drunk too much of his own kool-a…

> ability to both symbolically and numerically solve advanced mathematical systems of equations.

I mean, python, matlab, julia, octave, sage, and maple would all fit that definition I think. I do think Mathematica's CAS is the best in the business but not the only player for sure.

I'm sure Steven has something in mind that sets Wolfram Language apart, just not sure what that is.

Re: A World Run with Code

#29

Post by psychometry »

JackFr wrote: post #23
jwr wrote: post #11

I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have to…

> I find Stephen Wolfram to be a an interesting person. On one hand, he is undeniably exceptional and created an impressive computational system. On the other hand, the "Wolfram language" is really a pretty poor design as far as programming languages go, and would not even be noticed if it wasn't for the giant standard library that gets shipped with it, called Mathematica. I use the "Wolfram language" because I have…

He's that way because he's a narcissist, not because he's a genius. Those kinds of people have difficulty stepping outside themselves and lack the ability to situate themselves in a world of different opinions. I imagine he's perpetually confused why anyone would use a different language.

Re: A World Run with Code

#30

Post by [deleted] »

fractalf wrote: post #12
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish he'd cite sources rather than implying by omission that everything is his idea. There's a reason A New Kind of Science was self-published.

Bought the book some years ago, but never really got through it. Keeping it handy though in case I need to knock out a burglar. Thing is massive, shipping was half the cost ;)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN