🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jun18.202403.9592@newserve.cc.binghamton.edu> vu0208@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu writes:
>Doing smart CAD is not enough! 
But at what point does CAD cease to be "Computer Aiding the Human to do the Design" (CAHD),
and turn into "Computer doing the Design at the Human's Request" (CDHR)?

I agree entirely with thomae@eos.ncsu.edu (DOUGLAS ALAN THOMAE)
when he replied in message <1991Jun18.144225.21906@ncsu.edu>:
%I would agree that anything that CAD
%systems do today or are likely to do in the near future can't really be
%considered design in the same sense that a human does design, but I'm not sure
%that basing the decision on whether or not the computer does the design on
%its own initiative or not is a good criterion.  After all, when the typical
%human designer works is the primary reason because he wants the product of his efforts
%for himself or is it because his boss asks him to do it for some reason?

He goes on:
%I would say that the difference between
%what CAD systems do today and what human designers do lies in the level
%of the specification.  Humans can deal with fairly loose specifications,
%while even 'high level' synthesis systems have to be told about the design
%in relatively low level nuts and bolts terms.

Surely we'd all agree that there is a whole spectrum between CAHD and CDHR, above?
That at no point in that spectrum would you be able to say that the machine could
take the credit for the design.  Even in Douglas Alan Thomae's simile,
the boss normally takes the credit for the design of systems which were
overseen by him... and with good reason.  He might not have specified the
nuts and bolts, but he had the highlevel insight into how to structure
the design, and/or the design effort.

With a boss, though, the human underlings can fight back if they feel that
too much of the credit is being stolen from them.  When a computer is
the underling... I can't imagine it fighting for its rights for some
centuries yet!

>In my original posting I meant "Can we (humans) build Computers which
>in turn build new computer architectures without any human
>intervention at any stage.(period)
In which case my answer is no.
What use is a machine which does not act only to obey the commands of its
human owner?  However, if what you mean is "Can we build Computers which
can embark on CDHR?" the answer must surely be yes, since it is a sliding
scale, and we are already slid quite a way already in that direction.
Each year will see us slide a bit further.

>>We will always want the machine (the computer which designs computers in
>>this case) to act under the direction of human guidance.
>that's exactly my point.
Yes... I don't think that we are disagreeing with each other... just shifting
the wording around.

>Assume (atleast in a fantasy) we have built such
>a smart-self-reliant-computer (or h-m-c human-made-computer) that will
>only take the  specification of functions/tasks and the evaluation
>standards from it's creator (the human) for CREATING a new computer
>architecture (I call it c-m-c ie. computer-made computer)!
>You can think of all the fantastic
>tools/libraries/databases/algorithms/self evaluation schemes etc..
>that are availabe to this h-m-c. Then I don't see any reason why it
>cannot build a machine (c-m-c) that equals or exceeds the specs. we
>provided to it without any human intervention at all!!
Except at the beginning and the end of the design.
I agree with you, this fantasy would seem to be attainable one day.
I would use my CDHR label on it (pinching your idea to give it a c-m-c label!).
--

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all