<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#0b5394"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Tomasz Rola <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rtomek@ceti.pl" target="_blank">rtomek@ceti.pl</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 01:27:50PM -0500, William Flynn Wallace wrote:<br>
[...]<br>
<div class="">> Do you (plural) think that it will be possible in the not near but not far<br>
> future to say to a computer "I want you to write and execute a program to<br>
> do xyz." ?? bill w<br>
<br>
</div>Depends on perspective. From my point of view it happens<br>
routinely. All the elements on technical side are already in place,<br>
affordable voice recognition being the last one to have come. The<br>
first element, besides working computer, was a programming language -<br>
in this case, Plankalkul appeared about 70 years ago. People working<br>
on lambda calculus might have done something in this department even<br>
earlier, in 1930-ties.<br>
<br>
So, today, I fire up Emacs (an editor) and write "xyz" as a note to<br>
the computer. "xyz" can be up to many kilobytes of text long<br>
(hundreds, too, but rarely this long as a one long piece). Then I tell<br>
to the computer: "gcc xyz.c -o xyz" which means "write program xyz<br>
from description in xyz.c" and if all goes well, I can run it next,<br>
sometimes it even works. Actually, most of the times I tell to the<br>
computer "make", and it takes another note in Makefile, which<br>
describes how to make and what.<br>
<br>
There are people who do all of this with Emacs paired with trained<br>
voice recognition, so here you are. I never so far saw necessity which<br>
is why I prefer to write notes.<br>
<br>
You could now protest that it is not what you meant. But I see no<br>
problem. I use simplified English, interspersed with algebraic symbols<br>
and numbers and it is in fact a language in which I talk to the<br>
computer. How much simplified - depends on actual "dialect". Most<br>
langs like C rely on about 30-50 words as their core vocabulary. In<br>
Common Lisp there is almost 1000 words and I still have no idea what<br>
majority of them mean. Unix-like operating system employs from<br>
hundreds to thousands of words, each with special options to choose<br>
and modify exact meaning of many of them. As far as I can tell, it is<br>
always possible to create new words by defining their meaning with<br>
words already known (at least in systems with which I am willing to<br>
spend my time).<br>
<br>
So this is how I see it. I guess such views may be grossly unknown<br>
nowadays in the era of point and click "operating (hehe) systems". The<br>
"click language" is very poor in meanings and actions. It makes a user<br>
equal to foreigner who will never learn a language of a country in<br>
which he is supposed to spend the rest of his life - I believe this is<br>
only because lack of will, not lack of some brain part (although it is<br>
very much possible that certain neuronal wiring patterns help a<br>
lot). But this is not my problem, to be frank.<br>
<br>
Now, I realize what you wanted to ask was "when one can talk to the<br>
computer in a natural language like one would to the waitress or car<br>
salesman - or one's own personal butler". I hope this will never<br>
happen. Human language is too ambivalent in many places, often the act<br>
of communication is designed to hide meaning or to lie about<br>
it. Besides, it sometimes happens that humans don't know what they<br>
want and so they cannot tell it properly. The world goes on somehow,<br>
but I have doubts if this is thanks to our intellectual<br>
abilities. Pure luck may be better culprit candidate. Likewise, that<br>
we can somehow transfer meaning from one head to another is probably<br>
lots of luck and common roots. The more different cultures, the more<br>
misunderstanding, despite using the same language on the surface. The<br>
computers either form or will form another such culture, and a very<br>
different from the human one.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Tomasz Rola<br></blockquote><div><br><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(11,83,148);display:inline">Ambivalency yes, and also ambiguity. But in my novel the simple language has no ambiguities </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:rgb(11,83,148);display:inline">in it. I think that we will develop a language only for talking to a computer. This will enormously simplify voice recognition software. bill w<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
--<br>
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. **<br>
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home **<br>
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... **<br>
** **<br>
** Tomasz Rola mailto:<a href="mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com">tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com</a> **<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>