X-Message-Number: 12728
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 09:59:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: Reply to John Clark

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, CryoNet wrote:

> That's not quite true, a lot of progress has been made. The trouble
> is that as our programming tools get smarter our ambition gets larger
> too and we write more complex programs, so it never gets any easier.

John, I was guilty of overstatement. I should have said that I saw few if 
any substantial advances in programming techniques in the last 40 years 
(since the invention of BASIC, really) rather than the last 50 years.

Object-oriented programming was some improvement, but fundamentally we're 
still stuck with the same old problem: trying to define tasks in code, in 
such a way that every possible eventuality is taken care of, and complex 
actions are reduced to a simple instruction set.

Your points about atoms being easier to manipulate that sheet metal and
automotive components is well take; but still, when contemplating the
brain, we have a horribly complex three-dimensional problem, which no
robot comes remotely close to addressing in the real world today, so far
as I am aware. The block-stacking demonstrations I have seen are trivial
by comparison (even though they use a limited range of objects). If I saw
real progress toward machines that can manipulate three-dimensional
structures in a truly versatile manner, I would be encouraged. But I have
not seen any such thing. Of course, if we have true AI, the AI will be
able to tackle this kind of challenge more easily than we will. But
initially, human beings are going to have to develop the robots, or the AI
that will develop the robots. Sometimes I wonder if we can really get
there from here--within a matter of decades, anyway. It may be that the
prerequisite to brain repair will be AI that evolves rather than being
built from the ground up. This will require considerable time, initially
at least; and by the time it has matured, who knows whether it will pay
any attention to us anyway? 

I conclude that there are so many imponderables and unforeseeable 
problems and variables, no grounds for optimism exist. On the other hand, 
the same argument could be used to conclude that no grounds for pessimism 
exist. We simply do not, and cannot, know what will be possible or when.

--CP

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=12728