It will be approved it seems, but there will be a condition that you cannot speed more than 10% of above the limit. Which still for me is hard to understand why you then don’t just raise the limit if you think that going 10% above the law is fine?
Tens of thousands dead in traffic due to the “common practice” of driving unsafely. We have the opportunity here to make the roads safe but apparently mr musk doesn’t see the need.
I hope the Nordics prevail and the Europeans don’t follow his bullshit.
The older the get the more I appreciate speed limits as they are. Driving fast barely changes your arrival time on most trips and increases risk to you and others dramatically. I'm still guilty of speeding sometimes but on the whole I find driving the speed limits, or thereabouts, more relaxing and enjoyable (I do not hang out in the fast lane).
Pretty hard disagree. Going 75 on the highway compared to other people going 45 does have an impact on arrival times.
Sure, driving to the supermarket doesn't change much at 20mph vs 35mph. However, you may want to start speeding more situational as a lot of the lights feel very interconnected so rather than constantly hitting the same red you can speed before it to get a yellow.
Speeding largely just increases consequence of an accident but the thing that's causing them in the first place is looking at your phone. Adjusting how fast people can go won't fix then unless you dial it all the way down to 10mph.
If you're driving 75 mph and the speed limit is 45mph that's reckless.
Assuming the speed limit is 65 and you're driving at 75 that's quite normal but on a 1 hour journey you've saved ~9 minutes. Maybe worthwhile if you're going to the hospital but mostly not worth the stress and increased risk to others.
> Assuming the speed limit is 65 and you're driving at 75 that's quite normal but on a 1 hour journey you've saved ~9 minutes.
Most highways around me at 55 so it's 16 minutes. It improves much more when compared to 45 which is common to see people at because they cannot use their hands and feet at the same time (curvey roads).
> In 2024, speeding was a factor in 29% of motor vehicle crash deaths.
Well yeah of course speed is involved in a crash. You can't have a crash with two parked vehicles. Faster speeds make an accident worse but the accident occurs because somebody didn't break in time or look where they were going (common with pedestrian strikes as right turning vehicles don't look right for peds; just left for cars).
Them finding only 8% of accidents involved a distracted driver is highly suspicious. Anecdotally the amount of times I see people leaving lane unintentionally while also either staring at their crotch or holding a phone to their mouth is way beyond 8%.
The amount that people go over the speed limit varies depending on the road conditions, what they think is safe, and what the speed limit is.
So, if a road feels "safe" at 60mph to people, and you put the speed limit as 20 the average traffic might be 40mph. If you put the speed limit as 40mph, it might go up to 55mph. If you put the speed limit as 60mph, it might go up to 65 mph.
But that natural tapering is what lets you find a stable value for a specific percentile threshold.
In all of that it’s worth pointing out 100 Americans were killed on the road today. 100 more will be killed tomorrow, and everyday.
I don’t feel like setting the speed limits at whatever people “think is safe” is a good idea, and the deaths confirm drivers are really, really bad at determining what is safe.
Sure, and I don't think anyone would accuse Texas of being a "vision 0" champion. I wasn't advocating for this as a method of setting speed limits, I was just explaining why this method doesn't lead to a runaway speed increases over time.
Generally, there are 2 forces at play dictating how fast people will go on a given road. The probability of getting caught speeding is one, the other is the perceived safety of going fast. The issue most American roads have is that they are built extremely wide, with even more open space on either side of the road, so people are comfortable gunning it. Speed limits only matter insomuch as they adjust the perceived probability of being pulled over.
Our highways also train you that speed limit are complete bullshit. On an 8 lane, divided highway, with nothing but empty field or protective barriers on either side, 60 mph is comically low. That's how you end up with absurdities like it often being unavoidably illegal to drive on 680 in the Bay Area: either you're speeding, or you're obstructing traffic, both of which carry a fine.
IMO, the correct answer is to raise the speed limit of surface streets that already double as psuedo-highways (looking at you, San Jose), strictly enforce speed limits on surface streets, and then completely eliminate speed limits on the freeways.
My google-fu is failing me right now so it might be apocryphal, but I once read a story about a man who got an obstruction of traffic ticket for doing the speed limit in the fast lane of the 401 in Toronto (the busiest & widest freeway in North America). He was doing so in protest of getting a speeding ticket for doing 40km/h over the limit in the merge lane.l
This link claims this is for highways. Does TxDOT have a wider criteria for "highway" than the standard FHWA criteria? Under FHWA I would presume that school roads would be found on local or collector roads, not highways, but I'm not familiar with the streets mix nor the grant landscape of Texas cities.
Yes, there are different criteria for different roads. Presence of schools is one of them. In my neighborhood, the speed limit drops to 25 mph through school zones (it's 40-45 mph outside of the school zone).
My understanding is that the 85 pct rule has fallen out of favor outside of highways (where the mode mix is 100% high power automobiles.) I know for my municipality and my state, we set speeds in denser areas based primarily on the mode mix and in less dense areas a balance between vehicle volumes, congestion in surrounding areas, and mode mix.
You might be right, but the thing is, other countries can do things by fiat.
But the US democracy/political process plus the different states can lead to "vote for this speed limit" as well as widely varying traffic laws in different states.
Personally I think if you want super low speed limits, instead of just enacting them and expecting compliance, maybe use traffic calming devices and other reality-based methods. The united states is not one culture.
I found japan interesting. japan is a high trust, high compliance culture. A (US) friend lives there most of the time with his japanese wife and he told me how things work. The driving tests are very comprehensive and expensive. Also, if you're from the united states, they fail your test the first time you take it. They just assume someone driving on the right should not pass. They don't seem to do that to folks from australia/england.
I agree that you should use traffic calming and things like that.
But the method of increasing speed limits because everybody is breaking the current limit is clearly just bad engineering practice.
You start by over-designing and over-building the road, then you add spit limits to slow it down, and then you realize that everybody still speeds and you up the speed limit.
That just evidence of a broken culture around safety and road design. And people are paying for it with their lives.
That … is definitely not how things work in the US. Municipalities set speed limits based on a variety of things including but not limited to maximizing revenue, the streets city council members live on, random news reports about speeds in adjacent jurisdictions, and so on.
Were a car to refuse to exceed the speed limit, it would be dangerously slow almost everywhere in the united states, arguably reducing safety substantially.
This is a very weird argument. How can a car be dangerously slow if all the other cars stick to the speed limit as well? Any danger can only come from a difference in speed. So the danger is actually not the car observing the speed limit, it is the other cars that do not. Notably, any reduction in danger that flows from breaking the speed limit is only for the car and other cars breaking the speed limit, in no case it is for pedestrians, cyclists or other non-vehicle participants in traffic.
> How can a car be dangerously slow if all the other cars stick to the speed limit as well?
Because the other cars are speeding too.
> Notably, any reduction in danger that flows from breaking the speed limit is only for the car and other cars breaking the speed limit, in no case it is for pedestrians, cyclists or other non-vehicle participants in traffic.
Correct.
Speed limits in a vacuum are largely about revenue generation. There's ample evidence backing numerous practices that actually slow traffic, things like using traffic circles instead of intersections, reducing the width of lanes to promote slower travel, speed humps, separating traffic that's going a distance (roads) at speed, from slower traffic preparing to enter residences/businesses (streets). Lots of stuff.
Limits though? I mean they probably don't do nothing but they aren't nearly as effective unless you pair them with a regular police presence. And even then, mixed effects. I'm pretty sure the entirety of the Chicago Loop is capped at 55 mph, but if you actually do 55 on that thing, you're gonna die.
As to the topic of the thread: truthfully, IMO, parents should be barred from ferrying their kids to school. Not only is it just a "commute but worse" in terms of ecological impact (the car goes, drops the person, returns home, then returns later, picks up, and returns home. Literally 2x the normal traffic impact) but also it's ridiculously inefficient for similar reasons. School traffic everywhere I have ever lived has been a goddamned nightmare. I would rather be stuck on the highway jam ten times than be trying to navigate around a school full of stressed, harried parents driving big stupid SUVs, who themselves are surrounded by children, who themselves are entering and exiting vehicles at random.
School busses are the safest vehicles on American roads, and starting kids on them early gets them comfortable with the idea of mass transit. Dictionary definition of a win/win.
> Limits though? I mean they probably don't do nothing but they aren't nearly as effective unless you pair them with a regular police presence. And even then, mixed effects. I'm pretty sure the entirety of the Chicago Loop is capped at 55 mph, but if you actually do 55 on that thing, you're gonna die.
I actually look forward to self driving taxis/etc doing the speed limit for this reason. It's going to be difficult to speed if there are always vehicles doing the speed limits in various lanes (where passing lanes don't exist, at least)
As a software engineer I have no desire to ever let any sort of computer drive my car, and I will happily do what is required to maintain my access to the wheel. I'm thinking stuff like, more stringent driver exams, more expensive license renewals, that sort of thing. I recognize I'm an edge case and am prepared to contend with that however required. I am however also incredibly looking forward to a whole lot of other people being in self-driving cars, because my goodness, a large chunk of our populace has no business being behind the wheel.
I am not so arrogant as to believe I'm better than other drives. My record is probably better than average, but only because I religiously do things like maintain an extra long following distance (you know the things they teach in drivers ed that nobody does once they pass their license exam)
> I am not so arrogant as to believe I'm better than other drives.
Perhaps not you (since I don't know your background), but in general do you feel training makes no difference?
Would you say a heart surgeon with decades of experience would be arrogant to say they are a better heart surgeon than Joe Blow on the street who has zero medical experience? No, they truly are better, because their education and experience.
So yes, people can train to become far better drivers than the average. Hardly anyone does, because it is not required and most people don't care. But it is very much possible.
I don't have more training than anyone else - as you say nobody bothers to get it unless forced. I passed my test at 16, I know of a couple changes to training since then but it is by accident since I didn't look and no effort is made to ensure drivers hear of changes. I know many several things in my training that it is obvious nobody is doing.
I think training could help. However I don't think it will. People think they are good enough and will write down answers to pass the test. Maybe if the training was mandatory behind the wheel with failure meaning you lose your license - but the voters won't stand for that.
Quantity of training =/= advanced skill. It's also not arrogance on my part to see people who struggle with even the basics like a four-way stop, and not assess them to be lower skilled than myself. Arrogance would be assuming it, I just wait for people to do dumb shit, then judge them for it.
The arrogance is thinking they are worse than you. Most drivers I know complain about "the other guy" who make a mistake, mean while their own issues are "honest mistakes".
Are they struggling with a 4 way stop - or did they just prevent a crash because someone else you didn't even notice just did something stupid? That someone else might be you not knowing you even did something wrong!
Of course I have no idea how you drive, how much training you have or the other important details. The above shouldn't be taken as a personal attack on your actual driving. The attack does fit every other driver I know though (including me - though it is hard to be honest about my own failings)
I live in NJ, and what I like to say is that the drivers here actually know how to drive safely and correctly, they simply choose not to. When push comes to shove or they realize they can't drive like a jerk, they immediately cooperate and things move efficiently. It's not a knowledge problem, it's an attitude problem.
Largely agree. As a fellow red blooded american, I love my freedoms as well, but looking at how other people drive on the road, I’ll know when self driving has been solved because insurance companies will charge very differently for cars driven manually than cars driven by software.
Maybe software will never get good enough, but that’s not a bet I would make.
I think the software will get good enough to be quite far ahead of the average driver here. They're not great and they're only getting worse in my experience.
That said I think a fair number of people, myself included, are fine to pay and do more to keep our hand-driven cars, and I'll happily drive next to (properly insured) robots.
Ok? When I was learning to drive, I was taught to drive safely, whether that was under the speed limit or not. As my dad put it, "would you rather be right or alive?"
The issue there is that everyone has an inflated sense of their ability to drive at speed, and it's "other drivers" that are the problem.
Growing up in Australia, my dad pointed out two things to me, learning to drive: 1) that in my state at that time, you were required to drive at the maximum speed that was: within the limit, appropriate to the conditions and your ability to control the vehicle, and 2) that if it was to directly and imminently avoid an accident, a driver is permitted, for the minimum time possible, to ignore any road law (i.e. you cannot be cited for crossing over into oncoming traffic if it was to avoid traffic about to hit you. It was also commonly used for people cited for speeding while passing another vehicle - you'd appeal, and say "While I realize that I am still required to obey the speed limit when passing, as I was doing so, the vehicle I was passing adjusted its speed putting me in a situation where I felt the safest course to avoid an accident was to accelerate past them and then return to the speed limit").
But yes, as someone who was both a paramedic for 14 years, I've seen more than my fair share of drivers who think that they are safe (which, to be clear, is general commentary - I obviously don't know you).
No. They are driving unsafely, not you. Even if the speed limit doesn't seem to make sense for you, it may be there for a reason that's not obvious to you. It may also be there for non-safety reasons, such as noise reduction for the people living close by.
Also, people generally self-regulate down to a speed that "feels safe" for the road at hand. Sometimes this itself causes problems (the HUGE suburban streets near me constantly have speeding cars, because again, the street is huge and wide lanes make people confident to drive faster) but again, the issue there is that you need to make the road narrower, and then drivers will naturally slow down.
These mechanisms among others are much more effective at traffic calming rather than putting up more damn signs to clutter things up, and hiring more cops. But of course fixing streets costs money, and police issuing fines generates it, so it's not shocking that most municipalities go with option B.
Not fixing streets is 'free' and reduces the perceived safe speed. Letting the streets crumble is a win win.
This doesn't entirely work, eventually the street gets unusable and it's often much more expensive to rebuild it than it you had done timely maintenance.
I find driving in the US kind of weird. Most people are driving 5-10 mph above the speed limit. Not slower, not faster. So why not make the speed limit 5-10 mph faster? But then I guess that people will go over that speed limit.
Maybe the posted speed limit doesn't include the tip.
How is it possible to drive 'dangerously slow'?
Nobody should be driving at a speed (regardless of the limit) where they cannot react in time to a slow or stopped vehicle appearing ahead of them.
There are an enormous number of 2 lane roads in school zones. When there's only one lane of travel in your direction, what's the argument that driving the speed limit could be dangerously slow?
In California, I would see a single CHP vehicle bring an entire freeway to a standstill, for whatever emergency reason. They would activate lights/sirens and then simply swerve wildly through every lane, while incrementally slowing down. Works a treat. Everybody on the road could tell, it was serious business!
That's called a rolling slowdown or stop. Washington State Patrol does that too, when they haven't got comprehensive traffic management set up yet for a collision/incident.
If folks are actually interested in how speed limits are set in American cities, I'd encourage them to read about the process in their municipality rather than absorbing information from message board conspiracy posts. In practice, there are indeed several competing pressures that dictate speed limits.
One source of pressure to keep speeds high is that if municipalities can classify a street as a collector or arterial, they can get federal aid for projects related to the road. As such cities will often want to bring a local road up to collector or arterial status so that they can get higher federal funding for it. (Collectors and arterials usually are larger streets with higher speed limits, though the biggest gray zone is between collectors and local roads and often the biggest difference is indeed the speed limit.) Urban planning discourse about "stroads" in the US is largely a story of local roads that have eventually been classified as collectors or arterials so retain the residential or commercial density of a slower road but are expected to have the speeds and vehicle volumes of faster roads.
(FWIW I first saw this on city-data in the early 2000s and vaguely heard my parents' generation say similar things to this comment, but when I actually started listening and attending local meetings I realize that it's mostly an urban legend that gets repeated to each other.)
"...the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) was enacted in the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act that withheld Federal Highway funds from States that refused to comply with provisions of the law, including a maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) for passenger vehicles, an increase Nixon approved in signing the final legislation."
Heh there is lots of minutiae, but I'd argue that the NMSL is actually a very big part of transport history in the US and is absolutely something that people should read about. I actually think covering it should be part of basic US civics but :shrug: doubt that's going to happen.
The risk of having primarily foreign, especially American, investors is that the company will leave the EU. Like what we just saw happen with Heart Aerospace [1]. EU needs its own investors.
yes, but valuations are dogshit, which means capital is scarce, runways are too short, products end up so-so, and startups fail before they gain mindshare, not to mention the long enterprise sales cycles
It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself.
EDIT: don’t get me wrong. I still think AI is incredibly useful for a lot of tasks! But when implementing an architecturally hairy thing, I find it less stressful and equally quick to jump down to the editor level and use AI just for code completion.
Pretty much, The one thing I use it for is as a sanity check, pretty much "Look at , point out issues you see, summarise them tersely" and it'll spot stuff a code review by a human might have spotted (in the mythical land where people actually do code reviews properly and don't just flag a spelling mistake to "show they looked at it").
Beyond that I don't trust it at all and I still write all my code the meat sack way.
Trust is earned not given and it hasn't earned it yet.
If anything, I think this hype cycle is fast exposing just how many people, teams, and companies just don't care about what is correct. They just wanna feel good about themselves and get paid.
I for one welcome the fact that this whole thing has driven me back to books and deeper into the fundamentals. I have never read so much on math, hardware, and history as in the past 3 years or so.
Are you doing those things for your own enjoyment though, or to eventually capitalize on it?
And if it’s just for enjoyment, then doesn’t it make sense other people who want the same would just get a job where they can keep pushing things to an AI, feel good, get paid, then quickly get back to the hobbies they really love?
I don't think "compartmentalization" does this topic justice. Note, I'm not accusing you, since I don't know your work. My post is about the general milieu and the rhetoric around it. This "compartment" terminology seems to whitewash a dimension that has diligence on one end, and fraud on the other.
I've always worked in high-trust organizations where we depended on each other operating on the diligent side of things, making conservative choices to never wander into the murky area in between. It is horrifying to me how many people seem complacent about or even complicit in a different objective, which seems hell bent on wandering as far into the murk as one can without being caught.
When the person who has a duty of diligence starts rubber-stamping AI outputs, they're veering off into that same murk. They accidentally or wantonly trust the agent as if they have delegated their duty of care. But the AI tool has no such duty and no capacity to care.
I think this worker who has turned themselves into an outsourcing middleman needs to treat the results just like "found code" in a USB drive they found in the parking lot. Its origins and purpose are unclear. It could be flawed or obscurely inappropriate for the intended application, it could have legal entanglements, or it could even be subtly adversarial. The review task to figure this out is not simple. It is not something you do by skimming the result, or worse, asking some other AI tool to review and summarize.
The person importing such code to a project needs a different kind of diligence to try to screen it. For a lot of people, I think this review may be impossible or at least no less laborious than doing the original work themselves with the required diligence.
And, I think this importer needs to be fully liable and responsible for the outcome. But, instead, I think we're seeing frequent appeals to blame the machine and act like it is an honest mistake to let things pass because they've been rubber-stamping the imports. A lazy desire to claim credit for appearance of success, but shirk responsibility for detected failures.
Software Engineers have historically not been very liable even for errors they create by their own hands, and companies tend to operate on a “blameless” engineering culture where there is not really a formal consequence for screwing something up. Your peers may not trust you for a bit, but the trust builds back rapidly as they make their own mistakes and then empathize with your past transgressions.
And in the AI era, this attitude has extended even toward code engineers aren’t writing themselves. Everyone agrees not to protest too loudly if someone commits something wrong because tomorrow it might be you who has done so. The days of “obviously bad” slop code are largely behind us and most recent LLMs tend to put out decent code, so it is very hard to catch problems in review phases, you’d have to be very eagle eyed and that’s not scalable to every employee. It is much easier to let the code run wild for a bit and just be ready to fight fires should they come up.
My advice is to try letting the agent fill in the gaps. You can probably architect better than it can. Write your class outlines, explicitly define the public facing bits and what you want APIs to look like. Write the key integration tests that you know ought to pass.
The real advantage is that agents routinely write code without any silly copy/paste mistakes like accidentally accessing x twice on a coordinate operation instead of x and y. You can add some comments for what the function should do, throw in some real/pseudo code and let the LLM figure it out.
> It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself.
You might as well have left it with: "It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it". That's the core of the issue. It doesn't matter what you ask it to do, it can't be trusted. Some things are just easier to verify and correct than others.
I was investigating an ansible playbook yesterday that had a 45 line comment to explain a single apt install command, completely and utterly useless. I am updating my neovim to just collapse all comments, the noise is unbearable.
Limit the amount of comments you put in the code to a strict minimum. You should almost never add comments, except sometimes on non-trivial code, function definitions if the arguments aren't self-explanatory, and class definitions and their members.
Do not remove existing comments unless they are directly related to what you are changing.
Is anybody else concerned that we've gone from exactly specifying to a computer, using an exact language, what to do, to a more sophisticated form of prayer?
Nah, I'm sure it's fine. What could possibly go wrong with abandoning nearly a hundred years of CS knowledge and hard-won lessons and replacing all of it with the equivalent of trying to convince a sociopathic teenager to clean their room?
This seems to misunderstand the parent comment. The sibling comment plays along with the analogy and mentions having to fix the mistakes of an automatic chisel, but the original comment is alluding to the fact that it is definitely not an automatic chisel. There is no uncanny valley in an automatic chisel.
Programming up until this point was done by using deterministic tools to build products. LLMs appear to be nondeterministic tools in their current incarnation, at least to humans.
If an automatic chisel had a feature that could switch from chiseling from sedimentary rock to chiseling marble but would randomly and nondeterministically switch to the other mode during its use it would be considered defective. But with LLMs the industry has collectively decided that the nondeterministic automatic chisel builds so fast that the current defect rate from the nondeterminism is acceptable.
It would make sense to isolate the last line of defense from LLMs, ie the tests, but this rarely seems to happen any more. Once the tests are contaminated with LLMs all bets are off.
And people forget that along with atrophying skills and reasoning due to less coding, the skill degradation is hastened because the programmer is faced with the reality that they would have to constantly figure out, review or edit someone else's code (ie, the LLM's) if they truly wanted to maintain a last line of defense. But as this type of task is literally the least liked task in programming, the programmer passes it off to the LLM as well to avoid burnout...
They say writing engages more of the brain and helps us to remember what's written more than if we just read it, or copy and paste.
When you say it's easier to go manual, it seems you're talking about learning retention. And you're right.
But seniors have learned enough that they're able to iterate quickly with AI.
They know how to organize their work, manage change, tasks. They know how to break a problem down into smaller pieces. They're aware of context windows, token cost, estimated task lengths, etc. And most importantly, and to your point about ease: they have less to learn so retention isn't an issue.
I have no opinion about whether we're in a good or bad situation, just making arguments from the toilet really.
It's not just learning is it, why do people buy hand ground coffee when there quite literally isn't any difference? Or audiophile snake oil? As long as humans are still the consumers, some part of consumption will be emotional. Could be to support local artisans, could be gullibility, could be love, whatever.
Maybe one day artisanal code will be a thing lol. Hand written like calligraphy. Those with refined tastes will have their favorite code artisans. And the plebs can continue with mass produced industrial junk.
It happens, but it's rare. When last did a product take over a market without 100s of millions, sometimes even billions, of VC dollars?
There is no motivation to build a better mousetrap today, because the drooling idiot with a Claude account will look at how quick you signup users, clone it in a week (hey, it only needs to be superficially the same), and get VC money to dump until you go out of business.
I think what's missing is fundamental. I think the reason it sucks so much to work with LLM-generated code is that LLMs will never "know" what it's like to be human. They don't "understand" our frustrations and motivations, and they're missing the vast array of useful mental tactics we've evolved to cope with corporal existence.
At this point I think progress towards a good colleague bot would require a new architecture which allows continuous leaning, and for the LLM to be raised as a human child (maybe in a simulation at 1000x speed or something).
Your assumption is that LLMs will ever leave this uncanny valley.
Maybe unforeseen breakthroughs and different architectures are achieved. Given LLM fundamental shortcomings grounded in mathematics and information theory, I highly doubt they will and we will always need to deal with these issues in some capacity.
Agreed. For AI to be something you can trust to operate autonomously, it needs to actually be able to understand the things it is working with and reason about them. LLMs cannot, by their very nature, do that. There can be no reliability with such a tool.
I think that bigger context windows help, but I feel that for AI to cross this chasm, it needs to be able to encode more abstract context knowledge. I think the holy grail here is online learning.
I think the speed/context size of the large models is a threshold. I've been using a local model and watching it do killer stuff, and also shit out useless things; all in real time, requiring active steering.
It's the uncanny valley of AI. It's still not quite good enough yet that you can trust it blindly on a big codebase, so you still have to read and understand everything - which is often harder than just writing it up yourself.
I doubt AI will be good enough to _scale_ many things because human language isn't sufficient to explain it (especially when not understanding what is being built). Humans invented more concise languages (math, C++) to pair with their intellectual acuity. [1]
In one extreme, we have art, which cannot be accurately reproduced or explained in any language (unless a concise language was used to create it, like math or CS art).
At the other end: 1 + 1 = 2 and PI = 3.14...
[1] It seems any language that has a binary outcome (correct/wrong) helps the AI tremendously, however when e.g. creating software, that software is not functioning in isolation. The software is an attempt to codify a fuzzy human system or need, and that information only flows in one direction: human to machine.
reply