Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

183Re: Grand challenge: Language evolution (Re: Autonomic email client?)

Expand Messages
  • Dirk Riehle
    Dec 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The problem with biology-inspired, or more general,
      complexity-science-inspired approaches is that you don't know where they
      are going.

      If we undertake a project, we want a result like a self-correcting editor.
      Biological systems, in turn, don't evolve to achieve a purpose, they evolve
      into whatever survives and fits. As a consequence, you can't develop
      systems in a traditional goal-driven or requirements-driven way, at least
      unless you have found a way to make the construction-oriented approaches of
      biological systems converge according to your will. But that is against its
      grain and you would ha

      I"m quite certain that a complexity-science solution to a self-healing
      editor that corrects your writing will not have a traditional parse tree at
      its heart. I can't tell you how it will look like, but if Dick had a hand
      in getting it started, it might at times decide to add some irony to your


      At 06:43 PM 11/30/2001 -0600, bhaugen wrote:
      >May I suggest that the paradigm (forgive the word) is wrong.
      >Don't think about software as autonomous agents
      >(an artificial intelligence concept) think of software
      >as intelligence amplification - extension of
      >human intelligence - or intelligent assistants.
      >Keep the humans in the loop.
      >Make everything work better for humans.
      >What would make our lives better?
      >More humane? More beautiful?
      >More lovely? More harmonious?
      >How do we want to live?
      >Like this?
      >Kind regards,
      >Bob Haugen