6 ms·

The idea of computing as the shared stage to reflect our own intelligence is really what sticks out to me as the best way to frame what interacting with a compu

The idea of computing as the shared stage to reflect our own intelligence is really what sticks out to me as the best way to frame what interacting with a computer means. It's not new but Alan did a great job of motivating and framing it here. Thanks for posting this great reminder that what we use as computers today are still only poor imitations of what could truly be done if we can transport our minds to be more directly players on that stage. It's interesting to reflect the other way as well. If we are the actors reflecting a computer to itself. An AGI has to imagine and reflect in a space created of our ideas. To be native the AI needs better tools, the "mouse" of it's body controlling the closed loop of it's "graphics", how do we create such a space that is more directly shared? Dynamically trading been actor and audience in an improvisational exchange? This is the human computer symbiosis I seek.

djmips 3y ago
I feel like the LLM interface will enable that. I wonder what Alan Kay makes of the current LLM revolution (he does talk a bit about it in the question section @ around 1:35)
- jimmySixDOF 3y ago
  I am a big fan of just in time on the fly UI and LLMs seem to make that possible now with some of the fast token outputs there are a couple of experiments [1]using image for now and I expect this to be more useful in not too long. [1] https://twitter.com/sincethestudy/status/1761099508853944383?t=QBeKzFLJM8uXJEasj18vFg&s=19 https://twitter.com/sincethestudy/status/1761099508853944383...
- hdarshane 3y ago
  I'm not Alan, but I'm pretty sure he isn't too happy about it.
d_tr 3y ago
A first-class programming language (not an LLM) to talk to the computer's OS along with a rich library is the most important missing component IMO. Humans communicate mainly with language and no OS provides this in a satisfactory way for the average user. The result is users mostly clicking on signs to choose among predetermined tasks, like monkeys in a lab.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  That's because computers are dumb servants. And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific. The human has agency and sometimes imagination, and the computer's job is to solve a problem as transparently as possible with as little cognitive load as possible. Human language is optimised for human relationships, not for task-specific problem solving. It's full of subtext, context, and implication. As soon as you try to use natural language for general open-ended problem solving you get lack of clarity and unintended consequences. At best you'll have to keep repeating the request until you get what you want, at worst you'll get a disaster you didn't consider.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    Yes, the machine should be a humanity-amplifier, not a humanity-replacement. “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank Herbert, Dune
    - wwweston 3y ago
      Herbert is describing a humanity amplifying phenomenon.
      - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
        Herbert saw machine-thinking / AI as taking away human-ness, not adding to it. Or at least his Bene Gesserit did. Many quotes throughout the series about the corrosive effects of letting humans defer their complicated choices to machines, etc.
  - vasco 3y ago
    > And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific Why? I enjoyed your comment but I don't follow why this is obvious? Why should computer solutions be task specific rather than general?
borgensfeld 3y ago
[flagged]
coldtea 3y ago
>The idea of computing as the shared stage to reflect our own intelligence We tried that, and it worked briefly. But the end result is the modern web/app landscape: commercialization, tits and cats, hating, techo-feudal and government control, partisanship bs, spam, narcisism - and rare sprinkles of intelligence here and there.
- kredd 3y ago
  That’s true, but I think the core of human communication has always been half of what you’ve listed - low intelligence, hating, spam and narcissism. It’s just more obvious and amplified online as you can see everyone engaging with it all at the same time. In pre-internet times, you’d need to be physically present and see maximum a bar-full amount of people doing that. I’m still very hopeful we will use the tech to help up us with some non-communication related things. Maybe something that’ll even off-ramp people outside the internet world.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >In pre-internet times, you’d need to be physically present Because of that, the very real possibility of getting a punch in the face if you went over the line also helped curb those behaviors somewhat.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      A sentiment often expressed, but I find it too close to “An armed society is a polite society” for my comfort.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        Also: <https://www.butajape.com/comic/say-it-to-my-face/ https://www.butajape.com/comic/say-it-to-my-face/>
- gjvc 3y ago
  We tried that, and it worked briefly. Where and when?

djmips 3y ago

I feel like the LLM interface will enable that. I wonder what Alan Kay makes of the current LLM revolution (he does talk a bit about it in the question section @ around 1:35)

jimmySixDOF 3y ago
I am a big fan of just in time on the fly UI and LLMs seem to make that possible now with some of the fast token outputs there are a couple of experiments [1]using image for now and I expect this to be more useful in not too long. [1] https://twitter.com/sincethestudy/status/1761099508853944383?t=QBeKzFLJM8uXJEasj18vFg&s=19 https://twitter.com/sincethestudy/status/1761099508853944383...
hdarshane 3y ago
I'm not Alan, but I'm pretty sure he isn't too happy about it.

d_tr 3y ago

A first-class programming language (not an LLM) to talk to the computer's OS along with a rich library is the most important missing component IMO. Humans communicate mainly with language and no OS provides this in a satisfactory way for the average user. The result is users mostly clicking on signs to choose among predetermined tasks, like monkeys in a lab.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
That's because computers are dumb servants. And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific. The human has agency and sometimes imagination, and the computer's job is to solve a problem as transparently as possible with as little cognitive load as possible. Human language is optimised for human relationships, not for task-specific problem solving. It's full of subtext, context, and implication. As soon as you try to use natural language for general open-ended problem solving you get lack of clarity and unintended consequences. At best you'll have to keep repeating the request until you get what you want, at worst you'll get a disaster you didn't consider.
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Yes, the machine should be a humanity-amplifier, not a humanity-replacement. “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Frank Herbert, Dune
  - wwweston 3y ago
    Herbert is describing a humanity amplifying phenomenon.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Herbert saw machine-thinking / AI as taking away human-ness, not adding to it. Or at least his Bene Gesserit did. Many quotes throughout the series about the corrosive effects of letting humans defer their complicated choices to machines, etc.
- vasco 3y ago
  > And that's a good thing, because computer solutions should be task specific Why? I enjoyed your comment but I don't follow why this is obvious? Why should computer solutions be task specific rather than general?

borgensfeld 3y ago

[flagged]

coldtea 3y ago

>The idea of computing as the shared stage to reflect our own intelligence We tried that, and it worked briefly. But the end result is the modern web/app landscape: commercialization, tits and cats, hating, techo-feudal and government control, partisanship bs, spam, narcisism - and rare sprinkles of intelligence here and there.

kredd 3y ago
That’s true, but I think the core of human communication has always been half of what you’ve listed - low intelligence, hating, spam and narcissism. It’s just more obvious and amplified online as you can see everyone engaging with it all at the same time. In pre-internet times, you’d need to be physically present and see maximum a bar-full amount of people doing that. I’m still very hopeful we will use the tech to help up us with some non-communication related things. Maybe something that’ll even off-ramp people outside the internet world.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >In pre-internet times, you’d need to be physically present Because of that, the very real possibility of getting a punch in the face if you went over the line also helped curb those behaviors somewhat.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    A sentiment often expressed, but I find it too close to “An armed society is a polite society” for my comfort.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      Also: <https://www.butajape.com/comic/say-it-to-my-face/ https://www.butajape.com/comic/say-it-to-my-face/>
gjvc 3y ago
We tried that, and it worked briefly. Where and when?