Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

The goal of computing is, and has always been, controlling the behavior of machines the same way or easier than we do with other agents in the world toward some measurable end

So, to what level of granularity do you have to specify a system task in order for it to do the thing you want it to do, at the level of accuracy that you wanted to operate in?

That all depends on how accurate you can specify what you want to do

which means you have a sense of all of the systems that interact with, and impede the successful task of the set of systems

We can build abstraction layers we can build filters, but at some point somebody has to map a set of actions with a set of inputs and outputs, in order to sequentially build this set of tasks, which rolls out into the function of a physical manifestation of some sort

Add to that the complexities of mobile actuation complex environments and just the general state of power, computing, routing, etc. and you have a 15 body problem simply to have anything that someone would look at as benefit to humanity

Only a couple of disciplines can totally encapsulate all that and none of them are available to study anymore primarily cybernetics, and all of the interactions necessary to fully build a human machine symbiotic system



> "you have a 15 body problem simply to have anything..."

I like that! Although...Physics [so gpu] is enough to do it, when supplied with an optimized way to "know" momentary_[intent/\status] as a reduced ongoing string of equations.


I’m not going to pretend I know anything about the field, nor do I intend to insult your comment … but this reads to me exactly like the reduction of the subject that the article mentions.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: