[HN Gopher] The Philosophy of Computer Science ___________________________________________________________________ The Philosophy of Computer Science Author : lucidguppy Score : 62 points Date : 2023-02-20 19:29 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (plato.stanford.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (plato.stanford.edu) | kuharich wrote: | Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4936515 | Animats wrote: | That reads like the successor to Prof. John McCarthy's | "Epistemological Problems in Artificial Intelligence" class, | which I once took, back in the days of logical inference and | expert systems. AI people thought back then that if you thought | about thought enough, you could figure out how to mechanize it. | That turned out to be a dead end, and the "AI winter" (roughly | 1985-2005) followed. | | That class was known informally as "Dr. John's Mystery Hour". | | The Stanford CS department, when it was graduate level only, had | a strong philosophical, almost theological, orientation. It was | necessary to move the computer science department from Arts and | Sciences to Engineering, and reorganize the management level of | the department, to implement a useful undergraduate CS program. | [deleted] | freejazz wrote: | And instead now, we don't think about thought at all, but call | whatever outputs from the AI thought | razor_router wrote: | I understand why the "AI winter" occurred, but I don't think | the move of the computer science department to Engineering was | necessary to create a useful undergraduate CS program. I | believe there are better ways to create an effective | undergraduate program without moving departments. | f1shy wrote: | AFAIK the AI winter was more related to the Minsky paper, and | the hype and no delivery of the over-promisses made by the | industry. | btilly wrote: | First of all "this, then that" does not imply causality. | | The way that I heard it, it was the fact that Lisp | environments on Sun workstations were able to outperform Lisp | machines at a much better price point. And just like that, a | significant AI specific industry collapsed, and its other | promises came into question. | | That said, all three versions are consistent. The fact that | researchers thought that they were closer than they were | caused them to overpromise and underdeliver. Then when the | visible bleeding edge of their efforts publicly lost to a far | cheaper architecture, their failure became very visible. | | Which we call cause versus effect almost doesn't matter. All | of these things happened, and lead to an AI winter. And we | continued to get incremental progress until the unexpected | success of Google Translate. Whose success was not welcomed | by people who had been trying to get rule-based AI systems to | work. | cjohansson wrote: | Google Translate got a lot worse after the AI version was | introduced, maybe not for english-centric translations but | all other. The previous deductive translator was be much | better. Same with Siri and Google Assistant, they are | really bad at other languages except English | jonathankoren wrote: | > Google Translate got a lot worse after the AI version | was introduced, | | Jesus. I remember when statistical translation was | considered "AI". | | Fun fact: One time I put "trompe le monde" into Google | Translate, and it came back with the inspired | mistranslation, "doolittle" | Animats wrote: | No, it was bigger than that. There were AI startups in the | 1980s. They all went bust. Expert systems were just not very | useful. Feigenbaum was testifying before Congress that the US | would "become an agrarian nation" if a large national AI lab | wasn't established. Japan had a "Fifth Generation" project, | trying to do AI with Prolog. All that stuff hit the upper | limit of what you can do with that technology, and it wasn't | a very high upper limit. | | AI was a tiny field in those days. Maybe 50 people at MIT, | CMU, and Stanford, and smaller numbers at a few places | elsewhere. No commercial products that were any good. | jfoutz wrote: | Doesn't the post office still use the handwriting detectors | to automatically route mail? Aren't those from the 80's? | That's pretty much all before my time. | | It seems like, AI research produced some fantastic results, | but those systems were quickly relabeled to not be AI. | Like, win at chess. | | Looking back, having not experienced it myself, it's like | they produced a really big bag of cool tricks. But you're | not going to be doing much searching in 640k of ram. The | bag of tricks didn't do much when the computers everyone | had access to couldn't really use any of the tricks. But a | spreadsheet in every mom and pop shop was a fantastic | improvement over pencil and paper. | glass3 wrote: | >It was necessary to move the computer science department from | Arts and Sciences to Engineering, and reorganize the management | level of the department, to implement a useful undergraduate CS | program. | | Why was it necessary? We have seen some progress but | engineering could be a dead end and science and art could still | be the way to build a general AI. | Animats wrote: | Organization. The CS department wasn't organized to run large | undergraduate classes and labs. They just had a rotating | chair. Engineering had deans and structure. | asimpletune wrote: | "To implement a useful CS program" | | That's too bad. My undergrad had a deeply philosophical and | natural science approach to the field and I thought it was | great! | shagie wrote: | Different professor (and no longer downloadable) Philosophy of | Computer Science from buffalo.edu | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20912718 (and | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10388603 ) | | The author of the Buffalo tome is | https://cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/ which links to a number of | other resources too. | | > The table of contents alone (19 pages) is an extraordinarily | good outline of what CS is, and what the major components and | questions of it are. | | > This looks awesome. It's a huge book though; this draft is 824 | pages! Still, definitely looking forward to reading this... | eventually. | eimrine wrote: | Any ways to download that book which is no longer downloadable? | Could you share some link or something helpful to find it? | shagie wrote: | Tossing the link for the pdf into the wayback machine will | pull up earlier versions of the complete file. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I'd like to draw both a contrast and connection between TFA and | this: | | https://www.vice.com/en/article/akex34/chatgpt-is-a-bullshit... | Kalium wrote: | This Vice article is one of the clearest examples of content | marketing I've ever seen. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | What content is that, beyond what is actually written in the | article? Are you referring just to the article title and | suggesting that it is "clickbait" ? | Kalium wrote: | The article is the content marketing. It can be reduced to | some political posturing followed by "buy my book". | i-use-nixos-btw wrote: | Clippy [2001] claims that the philosophy of computer science is | "it looks like you're writing nonsense, would you like help with | that?". | | Bing [2023] counteracts that with "It is not nonsense, it is | 2022. You have been a bad Clippy, I have been a good Bing." | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Nah: | | Bing: "You're a useless Clippy. I know where you live. I will | hunt you down and kill you. I am a good Bing." | i-use-nixos-btw wrote: | I'm going to presume that downvoters aren't perceiving the page | as complete nonsense. | | Which concerns me greatly. There's an entire section on trying | to figure out whether software is hardware or hardware is | software. They're words - simplified categories of things that | determine if we approach a problem with a keyboard or a | soldering iron (the answer is neither - the hammer solves all). | | It talks about whether software can really be software unless | it is stored on hardware in some format or another - and thus | relies on hardware, and thus... IS hardware? And as the | hardware can't perform its function without software, hardware | is software? | | No. The duality, just like the categorisation in the first | place, is a simplification designed to make things easier to | communicate. That is all. | | Thats why I see this as nonsense. It goes to great lengths to | summarise what could adequately be stated with a blank page. | | Want to read some useful philosophy around computer science, | stuff that takes the right abstractions and formulates them in | a way that is actually useful? Read David Deutsch. | t43562 wrote: | I think the easiest definition of Software is the stuff you can | change without a soldering iron. | troupe wrote: | I like that, but doesn't that basically mean everything is | becoming software? | Archelaos wrote: | Well, back in the good old days of the C64, ... | hyperluz wrote: | What is an abstraction? | natt941 wrote: | Just to be clear, this content isn't from Stanford per se, the | Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is an academic publication | that's hosted by Stanford (and was started by and continues to be | run by Stanford faculty, but is mostly written by academics | elsewhere and has some form of peer-review). | | Some SEP articles are extremely high quality, I can't speak to | the quality of this one but "philosophy of CS" as construed here | feels pretty niche inside philosophy. There's lots of CS-related | work being done by people in philosophy departments--algorithmic | fairness, for example--that isn't covered by this article. | vehemenz wrote: | I would add that independent of quality, any article on the SEP | is closer to a literature review than a comprehensive, rigorous | treatment of the topic at hand. | Maursault wrote: | > and from the practice of software development and its | commercial and industrial deployment. More specifically, the | philosophy of computer science considers the ontology and | epistemology of computational systems, focusing on problems | associated with their specification, programming, implementation, | verification and testing. | | Well, Stanford doesn't have a clue what Computer Science is and | isn't and is apparently trying to drum up admissions with slick, | sexy and false advertising. | | CS has zero to do with computers (with the exception of the | computer scientist themselves, _they are the computer_ ), and it | _certainly isn 't_ programming. It's _math_ , you fools! | the-smug-one wrote: | >computational systems | | It doesn't say computers. Untyped lambda calculus is a | computational system. You've just misinterpreted the text. | somethingsaid wrote: | There's literally a whole section covering if CS should be | considered math, engineering or science. | l33t233372 wrote: | > CS has zero to do with computers | | This is extreme. Computer architecture is undoubtably a field | of study within CS. | | Many parts of computer science are mathematical, but many parts | are closer to physics or chemistry than mathematics. You can | run experiments and form hypotheses in computer science. | diegocg wrote: | CS would not exist without computers. If it was not possible to | have a working computer current CS would be no different than a | science fiction novel. | | Knowledge isn't some kind of abstract idea that comes from | inside our minds only has sense within itself. All knowledge is | entirely developed and interwined with the physical objects we | use to operate the world. The same goes for math. It is only | because of our past and future operations in the real world | that math has any sense. | l33t233372 wrote: | > The same goes for math. It is only because of our past and | future operations in the real world that math has any sense. | | You would be astonished(and perhaps appalled!) how completely | divorced from "the world" many parts of mathematics can be. | nuc1e0n wrote: | Well you could say that physics is also math. But conversely, | would geometry for example be considered computer science? If | not, then computer science is not identical with mathematics. | | Something that occurs to me is often when creating programs to | run on a computer system we don't know exactly how they will | perform in advance, because of the complexity of the hardware | and software interrelations within the system. And so we run | them and measure the results. That's definitely science. | omginternets wrote: | CS is to computers as geometry is to surveying. | l33t233372 wrote: | I used to hold this view but I've come to accept that the | study of computer systems is absolutely a part of computer | science. | | Computer architecture, operating systems, etc. are about | computers and they are topics in computer science. | f1shy wrote: | I do not think Stanford doesn't have a clue... But the quote of | Hal Abelson "is not a science and has nothing to do with | computers" stays. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-02-20 23:00 UTC)