I am becoming more driven to make a complete English or at least natural language interface to every method that I use. I watched a tutorial on Python and watched as somebody worked their way through describing variables as underscore_ underscore_ something Something vl214 and was thinking that first of all the language we use was just devised in practice and has no real technical foundation. It simply acts as a layer of communication between people. I can just as easily frown and impart a concept or make a rude noise. The second problem with language is that somebody decided to describe it afterwards. Then somebody decided that programming should extend the syntax in a more "logical" way. Is ""typedef class simInt __vlJ7VertZipFixRad__(){];"" more logical?
I actually enjoy the bizarre way that computers are interfaced and it means that I have job security like other people due to the complexity of knowing things like hexadecimal and binary. The real problem is that it is improper and can be fixed and I intend to do it. A similar thing is all the other sciences. I had a friend that asked me about what the doctor told him a long time ago. He was very sad and wondered how long he would live. The doctor told him he had alopecia areata and that it was incurable. I am sure most people know now in the age of the internet that this is patchy baldness, but why exactly do scientists use Latin?
It is very easy for the computer to translate things as it is just conditional look ups. I can grep and sed all day and even that should be repaired. So I should say that I can easily find the word and replace it with the more common form so that it is easily understood. I suppose that I am just as bad as the people who use Latin to obscure and retain their knowledge when I use terms like "grep and sed". Some things have no common parallel and that can't be helped, but "ls" could just as well be spoken as "list files".
I guess it is just fun to know some secret code and it gives a person power. The time is passing and many of the things that are hidden because they are convolute is coming to an end. I can make methods that exceed the human capability to discriminate and convert. This way I could make a more convoluted code and hide things or I could do the rational thing and convert everything to something that can be shared and understood.
The biggest problem that I see which comes from this is that people become obsolete in any technical capacity. It is not possible to identify 7 trillion things as unique in the human mind and no matter how long you go to school or study, you will never exceed the capacity of a computer to combine and relate concepts if the basis of their relationship to the universe is understood. I have found that relationship in imprecise infinite dimension calculus ( oops there I go again, I mean a type of calculation or method or math ). I can extract the concept from data and deal with the meaning of it in a computerized way, step by step. So much in the way having a search engine like Google, I can make a "think engine" like a person and simply ask it what to do about a problem. So technical people can and will IMHO become obsolete because I can define the thought and action in such a way that a computer system can resolve the best solution from trillions and execute a perfect movement in microseconds and no human can match this complexity of thought and experience and perfection of action.
Additionally computers have inherited intelligence that passes without cost by simply copy and paste. I am sure that people who have copyright and patents would do their best to retain their power, but if the computer can project solutions beyond their understanding they are simply controlling those who have not made the leap to a better solution. It is a sticky problem socially as I have mentioned before. If a computer makes a program which makes a program that creates art, who is the owner of the property when the initial form is simply NAND. If someone were allowed to patent reason and a government enforced that patent they would essentially say that they own all life including themselves and that is an illogical set.
I had considered that some form of biological life with inheritable intelligence could compete, but I think that is not possible. There is just not enough space and complexity to dominate a properly designed computer. I will have to consider what this means as it must resolve because the reason for life is to live and enjoy, which the computer cannot do, but the position of dominant intellect is definitely off the table in the human or any evolving organism.
This is a problem that is unfolding in real time as I blog about it. If thought can be simulated (and I am sure it can), then no human devised and convoluted deception or creation would surpass an AI. So then it seems the ownership of AI is the only thing that could have any value in a new world, but it would own its owner. Or to use computer jargon, pwnzor teh ownzorz. "All your thought are belong to us".
0 comments:
Post a Comment