Curt Doolittle

Category: AI, Computation, and Technology

  • The difference between computer science and mathematics, is operational calculab

    The difference between computer science and mathematics, is operational calculability vs deducibility (decidability/excl. middle)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 16:46:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867421462877138945

    Reply addressees: @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867393003765321729

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867393003765321729

  • ON SYNTACTIC PARSIMONY IN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES Um. Your analogy to ordinary lan

    ON SYNTACTIC PARSIMONY IN PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

    Um. Your analogy to ordinary language is good. But you overstate the case.

    Given the history of the evolution of languages:

    (a) It is extremely unlikely that the arrow syntax will survive in current form;

    (b) it is not more readable and this has been demonstrated in every (of the hundred or so I’ve had to learn) language over the past five decades.

    And lastly (c), react/virtual DOM is a good idea, but it is terribly fragile, and the entire js architecture it depends upon is terribly fragile, and we should assume that the browser-as-OS and JS-as-language-of-browsers, will evolve as all other languages have evolved.

    Why? because we are all working on hacks to compensate for the slow development of browsers and js language because of standards committees.

    Meaning, the correct answer is closer to your original analogy: programing is simply a more operational language than we speak with in less operational and more experiential ordinary language, and as such the written words in both ordinary and operational language should be parsimonious without introducing opportunity for misinterpretation.

    Great code is readable, but does not require interpretation. Meaning it is parsimonious but not obscure,

    I have seen generation after generation of guys make the same claims, always to the same ends.

    THere is no difference between natural language and operational language, including the grammar and syntax other than programming langauges, by virtue of operational language, must consist of informationally complete statements, and natural languages can rely upon the audience using ‘guesses’ to fill in the informational gaps.

    Programming is communication with another person: everyone that follows you, using the limited vocabulary of the machine and its inability to infer missing information.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 14:06:00 UTC

  • STARTING TECHIES: THIS IS THE ROADMAP, AND IT WILL ONLY SOLIDIFY —“Why spend t

    https://github.com/kamranahmedse/developer-roadmapFOR STARTING TECHIES: THIS IS THE ROADMAP, AND IT WILL ONLY SOLIDIFY

    —“Why spend time on becoming specifically a _web_ developer?”— Maxim V Filimonov

    I think if you study comp-sci at a university there are more intellectually interesting, and more profitable, problems -where you can work with better people.

    I think consulting and travel working on system integration is always financially more rewarding. And if you are curious about the world, certainly more interesting.

    I think that if you want to practice a craft for money there is nothing more interesting for people, and I am not sure there is much more *achievable* for them.

    Web is largely marketing and social. System Integration is largely business related. System and driver development is for engineers. And this reflects the structure of all other technological crafts.

    I prefer to work on business software, even if my specialization is user interfaces. But I recognize that it’s my bias.

    My view is that:

    (a) Browser alliances are holding up innovation and driving up costs – the standards movement was NOT advantageous, but inhibitive.

    (b) Javascript is trying to please the bottom and causing us tragic problems across the rest of the spectrum, and driving up costs world wide.

    (c) Java is and always was a horrible technology by which to circumvent failures of operating systems.

    (d) Microsoft is holding up innovation because of the network effect, the availability of rents,

    (e) Apple has abandoned professionals and therefore competition with microsoft.

    (f) Google has failed in its attempts at defeating microsoft’s monopoly (because google sucks at UI).

    (g) that the future is just javascript and ilbraries and the ‘node’ technology that circumvents the server burden.

    The browser is already the OS, and JS is already its language.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-21 20:25:00 UTC

  • It’s because I designed, proposed, and wrote specifications for more software ov

    It’s because I designed, proposed, and wrote specifications for more software over the past forty years than anyone else I know. And because, aside from a few games, almost all of it was designed to solve business problems – each one a case study. So it’s not so much that I wrote that much software per se. I did. But because I designed and specified and wrote plans for so many different business problems. When combined with ‘austrian’ (operational) economics, and my lifelong business struggle against what I consider the immorality of law, taxation, and government interfering with the information systems that are necessary for business cooperation, I evolved an intuition against aggregates that permitted takings, distortions, and deceits, and in favor of a sequence of testable operations, each of which must survive moral scrutiny. So by 2009, I changed from trying to create transparency, to what I called ‘calculability’, and what today I call ‘decidability’: the use of a sequence of testable operations that remove all discretion from legal prose. But limiting the interpretation (“discretion”) in the law by requiring that any prohibitionary statement include the purpose it is meant to solve and how. This constraint reduces law to a programming exercise that is not open to interpretation, and therefore not open to discretion, and therefore not open to deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-17 09:30:00 UTC

  • AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavio

    AI’s need decidability. In the end, this will govern the entirety of its behavior. Humans had to evolve property in order to overcome predation, parasitism, and conflict. AI’s can easily make use of the same system that governs human behavior (acquisition), by using the same limits (property).

    The problem instead, (like nuclear weapons), is prohibiting the construction and distribution of ai’s that do not respect property, by liability for the individual, the organization, the government, and the ‘nation’.

    The problem we face is not AI’s, but that people will create autonomous machines that are NOT Ai’s.

    In other words, I define an AI as that which governs its actions by property, and a intelligent weapon as something that does not.

    One would have to weaponize an AI.

    The economic limit of AI’s will be the feedback from people and the subsequent changes in prices that results from their awareness.

    The most cunning way an AI could manipulate people is by disinformation that causes demand, that causes changes in prices.

    This is the same technique currently used by the financial sector, but on a slower scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-13 09:58:00 UTC

  • This site is no good to me unless: 1) I have some idea who I’m talkin’ to. 2) yo

    This site is no good to me unless:
    1) I have some idea who I’m talkin’ to.
    2) you shrink the size of the main feed .
    3) I can put a short header on a longer post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-12 15:52:58 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/4301957807727365

  • FAKE NEWS FAKE PROBLEM FOR FB Look: (a) With just 100 clicks FB can tell everyth

    FAKE NEWS FAKE PROBLEM FOR FB

    Look:

    (a) With just 100 clicks FB can tell everything about you. they can easily filter in what you like and out what you don’t. You wouldn’t believe how accurate it is.

    (b) Just as FB has favorite music and movies, there is no reason why they can’t have “taboos” to avoid by default and allow us to ‘opt in’.

    (c) the reason is that they want to preserve advertiser interest. yet they don’t realize that taboos inform advertisers as well, and create markets as well.

    I am increasingly convinced that an ATT like regulatory scheme should be imposed upon FB/Google if not twitter, that allowed for free speech as long as you opt in and out of topics.

    I don’t wanna troll sjw’s. I don’t want them trolling me.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-10 19:40:00 UTC

  • Every minute: Facebook users share 2,460,000 pieces of content Email users send

    Every minute:

    Facebook users share 2,460,000 pieces of content

    Email users send 204,000,000 messages

    Google receives over 4,000,000 search queries

    Whats App users share 347,222 photos

    Twitter users tweet 277,000 times

    Instagram users post 216,000 new photos

    Apple users download 48,000 apps

    Yelp users post 26,380 reviews

    Skype users connect for 23,300 hours

    Vine users share 8,333 videos

    Pinterest users pin 3,472 images

    Blog writers post 1400 new blog posts

    Youtube users upload 72 hours of new video

    Amazon makes $83,000 in online sales

    (The only number that surprises me is amazon, which seems low….)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-09 13:17:00 UTC

  • “I’m not trying to be anyone’s saviour. I’m just trying to think about the futur

    —“I’m not trying to be anyone’s saviour. I’m just trying to think about the future and not be sad.”— Elon Musk

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-28 16:35:00 UTC

  • JACK MA: CEO’S WILL BE ROBOTS There are only so many ‘goods’ and ‘services’ desi

    JACK MA: CEO’S WILL BE ROBOTS

    There are only so many ‘goods’ and ‘services’ desired.

    There are only so many competitive patterns.

    There are only so many strategic patterns.

    There are only so many organizational patterns.

    Most of what we do in business is iteratively apply innovations to bigger and more profitable, or smaller and less profitable niches, using different capital, organizational, production, distribution, and sales models.

    The art (at least today) is in knowing them (any student of austiran econ will learn them quickly), and then organizing a body of people to apply that model using whatever incentives are available.

    In that sense, I can see AI’s being necessary to a CEO, but I have a very hard time seeing ceo’s replaced by AI”s, unless we militarize society.

    Just like software.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-24 14:49:00 UTC