[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Machine vs Human: The Disputed Territory (was:Syntax versus Semantics)
- From: "Cox, Bruce" <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV>
- To: "Ken Starks" <ken@lampsacos.demon.co.uk>,xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:57:04 -0500
So, getting back to Roger's definitions ...
Machines do the syntax drudge work, and wet-ware does the rest (whether
or not you call it "semantics").
Thanks to Rick and Jonas for the back references.
The puzzle pieces are just right, Roger. Thanks.
Bruce B Cox
Manager, Standards Development Division
USPTO/OCIO/SDMG
571-272-9004
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Starks [mailto:ken@lampsacos.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:08 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Cc: costello@mitre.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Machine vs Human: The Disputed Territory (was:
Syntax versus Semantics)
Costello, Roger L. wrote:
>
> Bruce Cox wrote:
>
> There are those operations that:
>
> 1) cannot be performed by machine
>
> 2) can but aren't performed by machine
>
> [it isn't economical,
> or we haven't figured
> it out yet]
>
> 3) are performed by machines
>
> The boundary between 2 and 3
> is a territory in dispute with daily
> skirmishes on several fronts where
> there are clear winners on one side
> or the other, but with no end to the
> overall conflict in sight.
>
> I think the best we can expect is a
> certain equilibrium between what
> machines can profitably perform
> and what humans will profitably perform
>
> The disputed territory moves across the
> landscape, but never completely disappears.
>
>
> Awesome imagery Bruce! I enjoyed it so much that I created a graphic:
>
> http://www.xfront.com/machine-vs-human-the-disputed-territory.gif
>
>
> /Roger
>
Although I expect us to get a slap on the wrist for being off-topic, I
can't resist making a response.
I want to live in Utopia, by the way.
In my world, the one I am trying to build, there will be no conflict
whatever between humans and machines.
Taking an evolutionary metaphor (i.e. Memes for Genes) it will be a
supreme example of symbiosis, of
the 'nice guys always win' branch of evolution rather than the 'red in
tooth and claw' branch.
I want machines to be life-enhancing, never to increase drudgery, so I'm
pretty strong a bit of artificial
selection of collaborative memes and pruning out of drudgery-promoting
ones.
Roger, anyone else, make a graphic of that if you like!
Ken.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]