Apart from the article's probable origin in AI, it makes an elaborate, wordy argument about consciousness without trying to define the term. That's just as well, since consciousness is philosophy's "hard problem," meaning no one has successfully defined it in a way that leads to agreement.
Each of the article's arguments that AI "consciousness" is actually a weak imitation of the "real thing," can with equal justice be applied to people, and the classic Turing Test method to distinguish machines from people has long since lost its authority.
And a future event, one in which AI sprints past humans in its willingness to absorb printed matter (once called "reading") and then put it to use, is ... wait ... umm, never mind, the point I wanted to make is undermined by the fact that this has already happened.
> ... immediately readable to a human eye, but even leading AI models can't decipher it easily.
For the moment. This pattern is easy to code -- it relies on the premise that a character has an inside and an outside. Outside, a pattern ascends. Inside, the reverse. Based on that simple encoding idea, decoding will be equally simple.
Am I exaggerating? You decide. I wrote a popular program for the Apple II (Apple Writer). International best-seller, translated into five languages. It was a word processor that included a macro language.
Are you sitting down? Hand-coded in assembly language, my program ran in eight kilobytes of memory. That left 24 kilobytes for a document, on a computer with 32 kilobytes of RAM.
In the present, I watch my GPU complain that it's run out of VRAM, and I lament that I only have 24 gigabytes available. That's a million times more memory than the Apple Writer document size, but hey -- not enough.
Over a span of just 36 years.
One more story. In the early 1980s, Tom Clancy (Hunt for Red October) called me and asked how to recover content from a disk his computer couldn't read any more. It was a full chapter of his Red October book project, written on Apple Writer.
I said, "Use your backup disk." Clancy replied, "What's a backup disk?"
I used Apple Writer in on Apple II machines in my public library in the 80s. I can't say I remember a ton about it but it's definitely a name I remember. I remember using AppleWorks on the machines at school, but I liked Apple Writer better and lamented that I wasn't permitted to use it at school (because the teacher said she wasn't familiar with it and couldn't help me if I had problems).
About Apple Works ... Apple paid me massive royalties for Apple Writer but got tired of that arrangement pretty quickly. So they made an outright-sale deal with the Apple Works guy.
Then the Apple Works guy refused to answer after-release bug reports unless he got ... wait for it ... royalties.
I suppose it depends on your perspective as to whether this is really a different world from today... I recently wrote the firmware for a USB NFC reader (in C) and it uses much less than 8KB of RAM, maybe half that. I know that's not a word processor, but people are in fact still coding within such tight restraints in $current_year.
I guess one could launch Claude Code on a quixotic project to create optimally terse 6502 assembly for some imaginary project that might never execute on actual hardware. Hmm ...
It seems like we were on a line of steady progression in features and usability through the 80s and 90s, then basically peaked for a lot of software by the 2000s. Once every feature most needed was in, and you spent the last 4 versions making things more user-friendly, what was left? But companies needed people to upgrade to keep their business model going.
In context, around 1980 we bought 1.5MB of memory (core, real core, hand threaded core) for our Burroughs mainframe, we paid more than $1M (1980s) dollars for it. With 3MB our 1MHz mainframe supported 40 users.
You make do with the memory and cycles available, things get easier as the resources get less tight, it's easy to use things like garbage collection rather than doing the hard yards and managing memory yourself, or to break branch prediction by using virtual objects
> There's a lot of talk these days about how the individual cottage programmer is on the way out.
It feels like we're actually returning to the age of the individual cottage programmer. LLMs are really a force-multiplier allowing a single dev to do what was once the work of a whole team.
> There's something incredibly peaceful about being in the hands of an expert you trust. You don't have to worry anymore and can let them guide you through the process.
> AI can absolutely shatter that feeling in an uncomfortable way ...
I see this as a field report in a time of fundamental transition, from a world without AI, to one that accommodates/incorporates AI. For this to happen, AI will need to become more trustworthy. As for the U.S. medical system, it can't get much worse.
I recently had a similar experience (meaning walking a fence between old and new methods), where I was told I could get an appointment with a human medical practitioner in nine months. So, to resolve my anxiety I consulted AI and got an instant diagnosis, one that was later confirmed by the inaccessible medics.
Being a born skeptic I wasn't going to act on AI's diagnosis, I just wanted to know what was going on, resolve some uncertainty. Another advantage: an AI chatbot doesn't say, "Wait, you're on Medicare? Hmm. See you in nine months."
Don't take this as an endorsement of AI's diagnostic abilities -- it's way too soon for that. In my case it was a slam dunk, about a condition I knew nothing about.
If Stephen Wolfram really wanted wide adoption of Wolfram Language, he would give it an open-source license and release its source. As things stand it's an expensive walled garden whose costs outweigh its advantages.
A quote from the linked article: " ...year after year building an ever taller tower of ideas and technology ..."
That's an accurate description of the Wolfram empire -- every year it becomes a more expensive, less accessible, vertical tower. Meanwhile, people intent on disseminating useful knowledge do so by growing horizontally -- Python, Linux, many others, all open-source.
Historical figures would be astonished at what Wolfram is trying to do -- they would say, "Wait ... you can't patent mathematics!" No, but you can try.
Obviously open source is a significant virtue. Mathematica has some strength in closed source, I doubt it could be as self consistent and backwards compatible if people could depend on the implementation as the use contract as opposed to the documentation. It would obviously have had more features earlier, but would that have made the perpetual support, cointegration, or documentation suffer? I'm not blind to the downsides, but I do perceive upsides, and those may contribute to Mathematica's niche.
This is easy to answer -- the nerds are out there, but they don't push themselves into the spotlight. The reason Sam Altman gets more press than Linus Torvalds is because Altman is a media spectacle and Torvalds is a technologist. In terms of importance, Torvalds outranks Altman. In terms of flash, the reverse.
Consider this: present-day historians say Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn was a writer in the time of Leonid Brezhnev. 100 years from now they'll say Brezhnev was a politician in the time of Solzhenitsyn.
I create CAD instructional videos based on SolveSpace, and I sometimes try to get people interested in CADQuery as well, but many people interested in CAD will learn SolveSpace or another similar design program, but don't have the programming background for CADQuery.
Too bad -- in many ways, for many projects, CADQuery gives better results, especially if a single design needs to be recreated in a range of sizes.
Each of the article's arguments that AI "consciousness" is actually a weak imitation of the "real thing," can with equal justice be applied to people, and the classic Turing Test method to distinguish machines from people has long since lost its authority.
And a future event, one in which AI sprints past humans in its willingness to absorb printed matter (once called "reading") and then put it to use, is ... wait ... umm, never mind, the point I wanted to make is undermined by the fact that this has already happened.
Hard to keep up these days.