Yeah, and it's really worth checking out https://dynamicland.org/, because Bret Victor is actually doing this -- slash pointing the way to what such a world could look like. It just seems like now might be a good time for specific smaller parts of that vision to be carved off and developed further. I say that largely because of the advances in multimodal AI, which maybe haven't been fully applied yet in this area.
This was posted when it came out here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45802029. It generated a lot of comments -- more heat than light, possibly -- and I wonder if instead of just taking the title as a jumping-off point, folks could engage with the meat of the article itself.
(I wrote the article. I'm a longtime HN user. I find that threads here lately have gotten very jumpy-offy -- commenters use a specific article about e.g. icebergs melting to have a conversation about climate change and climate change denial, instead of to talk about the merits of the particular article -- and I was hoping to nudge folks to read the full piece, then comment on specific parts of it. I'm not sure that'll work but figured it's worth a try!)
Hi, author here. This article was many years in the making. It's ostensibly a story about reading minds but really it's about the unreasonable power of high-dimensional vector spaces.
That made it pretty tough to write: how do you explain dimensionality reduction, PCA, word2vec, etc., and the wonders of high-dimensional "embeddings" (of the sort you find in deep neural nets) when a lot—or all—of these ideas might be new to the reader? I'm not sure—but this was my attempt!
I didn’t mean to say that nobody uses the software, just that I don’t know anybody who does. Which just makes it hard for me to get a handle on its value.
The question I’d ask those physicists is whether Mathematica does the kinds of things Wolfram claims for it / does things other programming languages can’t do. I wouldn’t be surprised if the answer was “yes,” I’m just not sure.
It’s hard to think about Wolfram. His tone is so off-putting — he’s constantly discovering the glorious and singular capabilities of his own products — but for instance he did basically invent the now-ubiquitous idea of the computational notebook.
Sadly I don’t know a single person who has used Wolfram’s software extensively. I haven’t used it myself extensively. Is that because it’s not what it’s cracked up to be, or because it’s a closed world?
Occasionally you see articles on HN with a date in the title, like “(1998)” — and over the years I’ve noticed that these tend to be some of the best posts.
It makes sense: on a site devoted to news, an article posted so long after it was published has to be especially good.
So I hacked together this page, which links to every HN post with a date in its title earning more than 40 votes. It’s sorted in chronological order to encourage wandering.
The way I think about it is less as an encyclopedia of sequences per se than it is a kind of projection of mathematics onto sequence-space. The point being that an integer sequence, because it often has so many mathematical interpretations, acts in some sense like the intersection of those interpretations. There are of course many ways in which two or more mathematical concepts are linked, but a shared integer sequence is among the most useful, precisely because it can be browsed and searched like an encyclopedia.
Jon Gertner's recent book about Bell Labs talks about this. Having a monopoly was essential for the Labs' success. A few choice passages:
Still, the contrasts between these organizations and Bell Labs are crucial. “This was a company that literally dumped technology on our country,” the physics historian Michael Riordan has said of Bell Labs. “I don’t think we’ll see an organization with that kind of record ever again.” The expectation that, say, Google or Apple could behave like Bell Labs—that such companies could invest heavily in basic or applied research and then sprinkle the results freely around California—seems misplaced, if not naive. Such companies don’t exist as part of a highly regulated national public trust. They exist as part of our international capital markets. They are superb at producing a specific and limited range of technology products.
...
“I’ve often said to my old friends that we were very lucky we got to work there, in an environment that I don’t think will ever exist again,” remarks Dick Frenkiel, who worked on the first generation of cellular technology. “It’s hard to say something will never happen again. But with the monopoly gone, with the whole concept of monopoly essentially discredited, how could there ever be a place like that again?”
...
That perceived natural monopoly wasn’t only justified by the phone system’s technological complexity and interdependence; it was also—in an argument that telephone executives made over and over again—a matter of economics. With one company in effect serving the country’s phone customers, some parts of the phone business that were highly profitable, such as long-distance service, could subsidize other aspects that were less profitable, such as local calling. Profits from high-paying corporate customers, moreover, could subsidize service to residential customers. Profits from dense urban areas could subsidize expansion into sparse rural areas. All in all, this kind of “averaging,” as it was sometimes called, helped make telephone service available and affordable for most Americans.
...
In testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly, Bill Baker asserted that “the notion that Bell Laboratories could endure and function away from AT&T, Western Electric, and the operating integrated Bell System would be laughable were it not so sinister and so ominous.” It was an argument like the one a gifted child might make in favor of preserving his parents’ marriage.
I think jlees makes an excellent point, that PE manages to bridge the gap between the basic "hello world" stuff and the more "algorithmic-y" aspects of programming. In my case that was what really got me snowballing toward being a reasonably capable coder.
I do think you have to be excited about discrete math to really plow through the problems, but the nice thing is, discrete math is the easiest kind of math to get hooked on, just because it's not much more than fancy counting.