On 18 Feb 2015, at 21:19, Keith Edmunds <kae@???> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:37:45 +0000, jay@??? said:
>
>> it really narks the establishment and companies that software peeps get
>> paid more than senior managers
>
> Correction: it may nark SOME of the group you identify. However, it's
> pretty much guaranteed that anything will annoy someone somewhere.
:)
>
>> and there is an ongoing effort by
>> companies to lower salaries by making it a commodity job.
>
> Some companies will pay the lowest rate they can. That's usually reflected
> in the quality of their staff and hence their business.
HSBC, HBOS,
>
>> and don't be so naive to suggest that people of the future will need
>> more computing skills, if anything computing skills will be required
>> less as tooling and AI becomes more sophisticated and automated. 10
>> years from now we will simply ask a machine to write software for us and
>> only a very small number of people will be in a position to modify that
>> base code.
>
> Rubbish. There was an AI program released in the early 80s called "The
> Last One", so named because it would be the last program one would need to
> buy (it created programs for you). It wasn't. Even if AI advances to the
> level you suggest within ten years (it won't), why would anyone ask an AI
> system to write a program?
most solutions once discovered can be coded as a template and data.
It is then possible to apply reflective coding methods to infuse data (raw and derived) with a solution template, this then then re-executes each time evolving the code and output in a feedback loop until a solution is found.
Just look at how proteins, raw materials and DNA work together, its a purely mechanical process, he outcomes however, are magical.
> Programs are a means to and end (for most
> people); it would be more likely that someone would ask such an AI system
> to ensure that the car is serviced overnight rather than to write a
> program to ensure it is serviced overnight.
>
> As for the quality of AI in ten years' time: speech recognition is an
> amazingly hard problem to crack, although the last thirty years has seen
> some modest progress. Having a system *understand* speech is a long way
> off. Look at how poor computerised translation programs are: the problem
> is that they don't understand what is being said. They merely use a
> (complex) algorithm to swap one language for another. "The cat is black"
> may be easy to translate into "Le chat est noir", but it will be some time
> before "I'm going to stretch my legs" becomes "Je vais pour une promenade"
> (unless each such phrase is individually coded, but still the AI system
> doesn't *understand*).
I genuinely think within ten years there will be an evolutionary leap in AI. I agree what exists today is a side show, but even 5 years from now that side show will be vastly more than it is now, then there will be a WTF thats super cool moment.
>
> Why do you mostly start sentences with lower case letters?
> --
> "Why does God hate me so much? Is it because I don't believe in him?" -
> Sidney Morgenbesser
>
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
