AI project. =)

Jarvis, Robert P. (Contingent) Jarvisb at timken.com
Wed Aug 14 12:16:55 UTC 2002


Is Mr. Lanier's paper online somewhere?  A link would be most appreciated.

Bob Jarvis
Compuware @ Timken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jecel Assumpcao Jr [mailto:jecel at merlintec.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 5:03 PM
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: AI project. =)
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 13 August 2002 16:48, Joshua 'Schwa' Gargus wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 04:12:14PM -0300, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> > > [Jaron Lanier (sorry about the spelling!) and software limits]
> >
> > I had read this before, and skimmed it again, and didn't 
> see where he
> > made this claim.  Could you point it out to me?  The closest thing
> > that I saw was that after 30 years, Unix (Linux, MacOS X) is again
> > the Next Big Thing.  However, he attributes this to bad 
> design rather
> > than bumping up against intrinsic limits.
> 
> That was how I read the beginning of page 11:
> ---
>   If anything, there's a reverse Moore's Law observable in 
> software: As
>   processors become faster and memory becomes cheaper, software
>   becomes correspondingly slower and more bloated, using up all
>   available resources. Now I know I'm not being entirely fair here. We
>   have better speech recognition and language translation than we used
>   to, for example, and we are learning to run larger data bases and
>   networks. But our core techniques and technologies for 
> software simply
>   haven't kept up with hardware. (Just as some newborn race of
>   superintelligent robots are about to consume all humanity, our dear
>   old species will likely to be saved by a Windows crash. The poor
>   robots will linger pathetically, begging us to reboot them, even
>   though they'll know it would do no good.)
> ---
> 
> He is 100% right, of course, and then goes on to talk about the 
> "brittleness" problem in software.
> 
> What I don't agree with is that these are natural features of 
> software, 
> but only that they are the reflection of the Von Neumann architecture 
> (where every single transistor and machine cycle "counts") on our 
> current programming style and languages. I know he tried hard 
> to create 
> a different style and failed. Other people have also failed. But his 
> conclusions from this are no more sound than some very 
> observant person 
> deciding in 1902 that the airplane was impossible.
> 
> -- Jecel
> 


**********************************************************************
This message and any attachments are intended for the 
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, please do not forward, copy, print, use or disclose this 
communication to others; also please notify the sender by 
replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. 

The Timken Company
**********************************************************************




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list