Especially for Habr: interview with Alan Kay
“Fortunately or unfortunately, I learned to read well in three years. Therefore, I managed to read about 150 books before the first class. I always knew when the teachers carried the crap. ” - Alan Kay
Hello.
I got it, so e-mail to Alan Kay. And I conceived the idea to talk with this legendary IT pioneer. Well, in order to wind up the importance and significance, I offered Alan Kay an interview on behalf of the entire Russian IT community. He agreed. (And now Alan Kay knows that Habr is cool!)
')
I had a couple of weeks to reach the most "advanced" IT people of the RuNet. It turned out to be quite a fun and interesting quest. And a kind of test for one's own / someone else's, for knowledge of the history of IT, for adequacy, for the coherence of the IT community, for the ability to communicate (I have minus three friends on Facebook), for the ability of organizations / communities to perform as a whole. Many thanks to those who passed this “test”.
There were 61 questions. Alan did not answer everything, but the numbering remained original, for the convenience of version synchronization.
Special thanks to Danil Kornev, Alexander Kozlov and Sergey Danshin for the translation. If you have recommendations how to translate any semantic block better - write in a personal.
Alan Kay: Wow, so many questions !!! Even for someone who loves answering questions! Perhaps it will take me a few weeks to answer all your questions, and even after that it’s not a fact that I will answer all of them! There are some particularly good questions, and the most difficult to answer them (and I will answer them one of the last).
- You said that you read a lot of books (about 300 per year). How do you choose them? How do you organize your knowledge (diaries, mindmaps, or just keep everything in mind)?
- In recent years, I read not so many books - perhaps 2-3 per week. And I do not organize anything, because I want the maximum of what I read to be remembered and connected with what is already in my head (although at some point I will be too old for this). Periodically, I make notes in notebooks, but more so just to remember something and "save" in my head. I rarely re-read these notes.
- What is the most productive format for learning and generating ideas that you and the coolest engineers from Xerox PARC used (reading, individual reflections, playing golf, barking beer with the whole crowd, brainstorming, hakathons)?
First, most of the founders of PARC came from the research community formed at the IPTO at ARPA, where many exciting ideas were invented since 1962. Most of the ideas are medium, if not worse, so two heuristics are important - you need (a) to have a lot of ideas, and (b) to have a way to prevent their repetition and uncontrolled growth (writing ideas into notebooks is a good solution). As a result, good ideas will appear somewhere a couple of times in a month. At PARC, we talked a lot with each other - drank beer, rode bicycles, played tennis, and engaged in “health coding.”
- Who was an example for you in childhood (scientists, discoverers, philosophers)?
- Scientists, science-fiction writers, musicians, actors, and other thinkers. For example: Einstein, Robert Heinlein, Bach, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Bertrand Russell.
- What is your favorite science fiction book? Have you read the works of the Strugatsky? (If yes, then share your thoughts on these works.)
- I do not know how best to answer this questions - too many favorite writers - I will return to this question.
- How much time do you allocate to thoughts about the future / of the future (10%, 40%, 70%)? Can you give a couple of practical advice to people who want to pump their ability to “think about the future from the future” (maybe read more science fiction, or, conversely, more historical books, or play old computer games)?
I do not think about all possible types of the future (and indeed I have no idea how to do this). What really matters to me is a list of those or other "problems." For example - “what needs to be done so that people of tomorrow can think better than people of today”? “How can we better understand and create systems of any type?” These two problems are highly interrelated, in my opinion.
I am quite sure that this process of thinking takes place constantly in my head 24 hours a day. Perhaps, I spend 3-4 hours a day actively thinking and working on things that allow me to better understand my list of “problems”.
"Leisure" helps a great deal. One of the very useful skills is the ability to be very critical, and, at the same time, not to succumb to depression. Another skill is to be able to work with different types of so-called. "Blindness." Most ideas are very mediocre, if not worse. At the same time, to be critical, you can skip potentially good ideas — and let ideas run like a stream, and write down those that look promising (methodologically, it’s better not to take good ideas right away — you need to put them off for a while to come to when it becomes clearer that they are really good).
You can draw an analogy with night vision (the eye is more sensitive outside the central fossa of the retina) - if you want to look at a star, then it is better to look not at it itself, but at its edges.
- Do you think there is a place for innovation in the so-called? digital working environments, or is the desktop metaphor and personal AI assistants the end of innovation in this area?
- In my opinion, nothing breakthrough has yet happened - and there is plenty of space for innovation and new inventions (and these promising developments are very, very necessary!)
“If you don’t think that innovation in digital workflows is over, what do you think of zoomed user interfaces as the basis for alternative digital work environments?” (Zoom user interfaces were promoted by Jeff Raskin himself, and today we have a lot of 2-in-1 form factor tablets, and there is an augmented reality, where natural user interfaces rely on spatial memory).
- The zoomed user interfaces were born long before Jeff Raskin (he was not very attentive to documenting the sources of his ideas). For example, Sketchpad was not only the first modern interactive graphics system (and this was in 1962, the year!), But it also had a zummed interface. Another very important example is the early zoomed graphical interface developed by the Arch-Mac Nicholas Negroponte group in the 1970s for the Spatial Data Management System project.
“Once overlapping windows were a useful invention, but today, when we work with huge amounts of information, overlapping windows make it difficult to organize information in the workspace. What prospects do you see in solving this problem of “overlapping windows”?
- If you have a huge display surface - real or virtual - then you do not need overlapping windows. Initially, our idea was to solve the problem of very small screens - overlapping windows on them were a great solution. “Huge amounts of information” cannot be dealt with by simply enlarging screens (after all, information objects must fit within the scope of what the human brain can simultaneously realize and understand). And one more thing - Big Data is not as important as Big Meaning.
- What tools form your personal workspace on the computer?
“My main work tools are all that lies between my ears and my hands, especially when it comes to drawing.” (even during the development of the Dynabook concept, I said that the tablet should have a pen, and it should support drawing, and I was deeply distressed by how long it took the industry to do at least this, and at least on tablet PCs) . And the level of support for drawing, which is in the tablets, it does not reach the level of those who really know how to draw.
At the next level, we have books and reading in general. And again, the industry has not yet produced anything as easy to read as ordinary paper. What the industry has managed to do is not very convenient for those who like to read.
Even higher in the list of my tools for work is a comfortable sofa - you can stretch out on it, read and write.
I need to play a musical instrument every day.
“Are you not disappointed with what computers have become?” Toys, porn, twitter and so on?
- I am disappointed with consumer businesses and a very, very bad educational system. Computers can be compared to musical instruments, their music is ideas; As you know, you can manage to get terrible sounds, even when using the world's best violin, and you can play the most unusual piece of music. So, you should stick your finger at the users themselves.
See the answer to question №15.
- Douglas Engelbart dreamed of using computers to enhance human intelligence, including collective intelligence. Why wasn't he given the chance to realize his concept of reinforcement?
- I do not think that Dagu something forbidden. There were several problems, including those mentioned in the answer to the 16th question. Most people didn’t understand why personal computers were invented, not to mention the great ideas that Doug helped bring to life.
- Has the OLPC project achieved all the pedagogical tasks that you set in the days of DynaBook?
“Not even close by.”
- What awaits OLPC in the future?
- For me, it would be a great idea to repeat a project of this kind every 10-15 years. In a few years it will be the most it will start a new such project.
- What did you achieve in the OLPC project, and where did you fail?
- Honestly, I did not quite understand this question. But the basic idea is simple - you need to continue to "continue."
- Over the past five years, connective modeling has taken a huge step forward. Does Alan Kay consider that this is part of the next computer revolution that has finally begun, or is he still waiting for the classical computer revolution (which will not start at all) and would not mix symbolist and connectionist computing?
- I think I did not quite understand the first question. As for the second, then, I think, for any kind of so-called. “Correlation modeling” (such as neural networks, “deep learning”, etc.) it is very important to be paired with “cognitive modeling”, which uses reflective models and knowledge simulations, rather than just reactions. (Minsky’s Society of Mind is still a great introduction to all the paradigms of this kind).
For me, the classic computer revolution lies in the idea of not just giving a person a set of tools that strengthen the human mind, but also help better shape the human mind. In other words, what happens “between the ears” plays a very important role - and so on. The pioneers wanted to improve these processes in comparison with everything that mankind had during most of its history. (I would say that today what is happening “between the ears” in people who, for the most part, use computers for entertainment and social communications, can be called “retrograde”.
- How do you feel about the language of Julia, which is now slowly coming to the role of the leading language of scientific computing after the Fortran-Matlab-python?
- Hmm, I don’t think that I have ideas on how to criticize a programming language, and even with such a rich functionality, without trying to write at least one big project on it (and I did not try to write programs in the Julia language). In my opinion, scientific models ultimately need simulations — and they, in turn, need weakly-related objects — and judging by the documentation for the Julia programming language, it is not very clear how these weakly-related objects are the center whole language, or are not.
- What do you consider the main achievement of VPRI for the last year / 5 years?
- Take a look at the Writings section on my website at the Viewpoints Research Institute , and judge for yourself.
— « ». , , , — . , ( 1970-), , . , , , . ( , , ) , — , ?
- I suppose, to answer this question, it is worthwhile to begin to figure out what the approximate amounts of clean energy (including emissions and heat) we can produce thanks to science and technology. This will help us determine further targets, and with them - indicators (including size of population, etc.).
In such conditions, one of the most important qualities or abilities will be the ability to “understand the system, take it into account, and its feedback” in a variety of dimensions at the same time (and this is not only about cooperation, but also about the need to understand that you should not try beat "system). The other most important abilities will be those associated with “growth”, the fight against boredom, and the ability to enjoy, admire life without the need for war, envy, power, etc.
In my opinion, there are many things ahead that people will have to learn very quickly. As you said, all these problems have existed for many years. There were some very remarkable thoughts about these problems, for example, in the books of Bertrand Russell, about a hundred years ago, where he tried to figure out how to solve these difficulties.
— “ ”, “-”, 1960- PARC, SRI, — . , , (, , ) “ ”?
: ? , “-” (, 21 )?
- For me, so neural interfaces are not as irreplaceable as it may seem (and in general, for the beginning it is necessary that human minds learn to work more efficiently by themselves). Today it can be seen that even the most effective communication technologies used by people do not help their minds to become more efficient!
Both Doug, and I, and our colleagues, we all believed that in order for new media tools to bring maximum benefit, a grandiose transformation of general education is needed (after all, what can a person do with a violin if he doesn’t know how to play it? ?)
Thus, what we did with our group 40-50 years ago is only a small fraction of what needs to be done. And now is a great time for a new attempt to solve these problems (Bret Victor is a terrific young thinker in this field).
— “ ” , . , “ ”, , , . , , -?
- Yes, as they say, “music is not in the piano,” but it is thanks to the piano that we can play the greatest music in our history. And this greatest music was born in the minds of its creators due to the fact that the new musical instruments of their time gave them new opportunities to play this music. (and some of these instruments arose because these musicians invented new types of music that required these new instruments!). I would say that it is impossible to think about new areas of development without thinking about how ideas, works, tools and media evolve and evolve together.
If you think about it, it will be seen that most of the inventions that developed our civilization are not the product of “genetics” in the sense that they were not born “naturally” in traditional cultures ", and they very often go against the so-called" genetic "tendencies that seem natural (for example, revenge, inequality, etc.).
If you look for those things that are" natural "for a person and that cause us trouble, you can find many such things, for example: "," The desire for status and power "," envy "," the desire to revenge, ”etc. Look at the list of several hundred human universals (“ human universals ”see the book by Donald Brown, etc.), and choose teaching methods for working on those of them that interest you.
- Considering your role as one of the ideologists of the “constructivist" movement in education - what do you think will be the preferred way of educating people in the 21st century? For example, will they mainly study in self-organized digital media under the control of artificial intelligence, or various “community of practice” and project teams where they can learn from their colleagues and peers - or they will continue to study in more traditional formats, in schools and universities (taking into account that they will update with holding curriculum formats, or something else?
- I’m not very much an ideologue (and in general a “-log”). That’s what I’d really think about:
I talked a lot about it and wrote ... But for starters, it’s best to start by reading the Montessori books (they are all very good). The book she wrote near the end of her life, The Absorbent Mind, is especially good.
- In your opinion, is it advisable to create a space with permission to experiment in a technical field, such a permanent hackathon mode, but without the mandatory applicability and availability of a business model where people would live and search for new meanings in a rapidly changing, complex world, prototyping new technologies on themselves? Would you be interested in creating such a project?
- Partly this is exactly what Engelbart wanted. An important nuance here is that “improvisation” and “composition” (creation) are far from the same thing. Mass culture is prone to improvise and consume improvisation, but planning and other activities necessary for creation or composition are not characteristic of it at all. In this context, “hackathons” are about “doing”, rather than “thinking”.
- How do you come up with new ideas? These are insights, luck and chance, or do you still formulate for yourself some tasks, solving which, do you invent? Or do you have your own way?
- “Luck” is a complicated idea. It is partially behind the “things that are out of our control,” and it is an important factor in most creative processes. I wrote a little more about this in my answer to question no. 15.
- If new ideas are the result of problem solving, what tasks or questions did you set yourself when you thought up a laptop / OOP / etc?
- My process is much more focused on “finding” problems, rather than on solving them (I wrote about this in other answers to the questions in this interview). So, Dynabook is a very, very simple idea, which coincided with the great work that Seymour Papert worked on. In other words, it was a way to “cling” to that cool universe, where people learn to study difficult things to learn .
- what do you see as the next "big step" in the development of personal devices? We went from computers to laptops, then to tablets and smartphones. What's next?
“How to learn to use these tools effectively?”
- What in childhood was the development of your curiosity?
- Most children are born full of curiosity, but they are quite satisfied with the "stories" as answers to their questions. I think I was much more curious, and simple “stories” did not suit me. It is possible that the fact that I learned to read more or less at a very early age, played a large part, and reading a large number of books, as we know, greatly expands the human horizon, and only kindles curiosity.
- What do you think is not enough humanity in terms of knowledge and technology?
- I will return to this issue. The simplest answer is “we cannot learn to look until we realize that we are blind”, and most people do not realize that they are blind. This is a kind of meta-knowledge - and if used, it completely changes the very approach to learning and to knowledge.
Shapelez is a good man. He is very good at warning, and therefore we have a block of corporate issues. Do as Shapelez .
- Donald Knut, in an interview from 2008, said: “For me, everything looks like the hardware developers have exhausted all the ideas and are trying to shift the blame for the imminent demise of Moore's Law on software authors, providing machines that work faster only in certain situations and with specific benchmarks. I won’t be surprised if the whole multi-threaded idea turns out to be a dummy, worse than the Itanium approach which should have been “so lost” until it became clear that the desired compiler cannot be written in principle. " This year even ordinary consumer processors have become 8-core , top mainstream processors number their cores in dozens. Those. “took a wrong turn” processor industry, according to Knuth.
How do you assess what is happening and what do you think should and will happen to processors in the coming decade?
- Good question. A lot of good iron ideas that started in the early 60s were never used or implemented, so some engineers still have ideas. However, chip makers (such as Intel and Motorola) have never been interested in ideas (in fact, even in software).
The next set of answers is too long for this format - but it is between the lines and concerns the uselessness of compiling bad languages into multiprocessors. The right way is to create good languages and to give iron and design the opportunity to optimize these good ideas.
I certainly agree with the fact that the (processor) industry turned the wrong way - and the first such was done back in the distant 60s before the CPU began to be produced as an integrated system on a chip.
- From the world in which we use certain technologies, we are moving towards the world in which technologies use us. Contextual advertising is the most obvious and innocuous example. What risks do you see in this field?
“In the 19th century, American writer Toro said that“ we become tools of our own tools. ” This phenomenon has been studied by some people since the beginning of the 50s, such as Marshall McLuhan, and I see in this trend a big problem entailing potentially high risks.
- Where do you think the development of the PLO is heading? Do you agree with the statement that OOP degenerates into something between object-oriented and functional programming? Is it possible to move into some other, new paradigm?
“There is absolutely no conflict with functional programming in how I thought about OOP (and what I meant by that). Look at the idea of "fluents" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_ (artificial_intelligence) by John McCarthy and the "pseudo-time" formulated by several researchers behind Streychi. The point is simply that people want to program imperatively and, as a result, are forced to call object-oriented programming what are in fact abstract data types, not OOP.
- Given the progress in machine learning, is it possible to expect that the way of writing computer programs will change in the near future? That is, can computers themselves significantly help a person in writing programs? How to move in this direction?
- Yes, I have already spoken on this subject several times - there are records on YouTube, but I do not publish my own performances and do not even follow them. If there is time, I will try to find the most relevant one containing a few words on the subject of the question you asked.
- How do you feel about immersing children into working with computers from an early age? Many very parents very severely limit this to at least 7 years.
- How about reading in early childhood? Or designer TinkerToys ? These are great ideas if the books are good and the tools are good.
- As one of the authors of the Smalltalk language and the OOP paradigm, how do you feel about the fact that the widely used programming languages do not adhere to a pure OOP, being essentially multi-paradigm? This is the result of the fact that the possibilities of pure OOP have been underestimated, or is it all right?
- Multi-paradigm in a programming language is, on the whole, good. Bad is when a bad paradigm is used in a language. Imperative programming using structures as well as “setters” in the “so-called OOP” are very bad ways to program. A religious cult becomes evil even if it tries to be good, because it faces difficulties in relation to various changes in the world - and it also happens that a cult arises about the wrong ideas. Therefore, to remove any “religious cult” from the computer sphere would be a great blessing. The real question is this: how to create systems in which “simple things would be simple, and complex things are possible.” This, among other things, implies the possibility of changing one's point of view on things over time, as well as the ability to make changes, expending a reasonable amount of effort.
- There is a hypothesis that those things that you created or invented were not claimed at the time. They were something to enjoy, amazing futuristic things. But 40 years later, they became the cornerstone in people's lives. In this situation, as you think, what amazing futuristic things, irrelevant in our day, will be able to solve some problems in the future?
- I would say that what we invented was relevant at one time, just almost no one realized. Try to imagine what is so necessary now, but does not occur to anyone?
Thank.
“American business is completely fucked up because it is all about competition. But our world was created for mutually beneficial cooperation, and this is exactly what we need to train people. The best analogy is team sports. ”
I think Engelbard was delighted with how Alan Kay answered questions in the mode of joint editing of the document.
What question would you ask Alan Kay?
Hello.
I got it, so e-mail to Alan Kay. And I conceived the idea to talk with this legendary IT pioneer. Well, in order to wind up the importance and significance, I offered Alan Kay an interview on behalf of the entire Russian IT community. He agreed. (And now Alan Kay knows that Habr is cool!)
')
I recall the merits of Alan
- He worked in the legendary Xerox PARC, Atari, Apple, Disney, HP.
- He proposed the concept of Dynabook (in 1968), which defined the conceptual basis for a laptop, tablet computer and e-book.
- One of the founding fathers of object-oriented programming (SmallTalk, 1969).
- Participated in the creation of the first personal computer Xerox Alto (1973).
- The initiator of the useful movement "Every child on the laptop."
- in 2001, he founded the Viewpoints Research Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to children, education and advanced software development.
- In 2006 he threw a defiant challenge to the industry - announced the possibility of creating an operating system with a graphical interface of 20,000 lines of code.
- In 2016 he joined the Y Combinator.
I had a couple of weeks to reach the most "advanced" IT people of the RuNet. It turned out to be quite a fun and interesting quest. And a kind of test for one's own / someone else's, for knowledge of the history of IT, for adequacy, for the coherence of the IT community, for the ability to communicate (I have minus three friends on Facebook), for the ability of organizations / communities to perform as a whole. Many thanks to those who passed this “test”.
There were 61 questions. Alan did not answer everything, but the numbering remained original, for the convenience of version synchronization.
Special thanks to Danil Kornev, Alexander Kozlov and Sergey Danshin for the translation. If you have recommendations how to translate any semantic block better - write in a personal.
Alan Kay: Wow, so many questions !!! Even for someone who loves answering questions! Perhaps it will take me a few weeks to answer all your questions, and even after that it’s not a fact that I will answer all of them! There are some particularly good questions, and the most difficult to answer them (and I will answer them one of the last).
MagisterLudi
(future thinker, sci-fi analyst, information and IT revolution researcher, IT-journalist)Question 1
original
1) You can read a lot of books (about 300 per year). How do you choose them? How do you organize your personal knowledge?
These days I read fewer books a year - perhaps 2-3 per week. I want to organize my head. (I would like to work). () I didn’t care much about my notebooks.
These days I read fewer books a year - perhaps 2-3 per week. I want to organize my head. (I would like to work). () I didn’t care much about my notebooks.
- You said that you read a lot of books (about 300 per year). How do you choose them? How do you organize your knowledge (diaries, mindmaps, or just keep everything in mind)?
- In recent years, I read not so many books - perhaps 2-3 per week. And I do not organize anything, because I want the maximum of what I read to be remembered and connected with what is already in my head (although at some point I will be too old for this). Periodically, I make notes in notebooks, but more so just to remember something and "save" in my head. I rarely re-read these notes.
Question 2
original
2) Xerox PARC (reading, individual thinking, playing golf, drinking beer together, mindstorms, hackathons)?
At the ARPA-IPTO research community, we generated many great ideas. It’s a good idea to have a lot of ideas. for this). The day to day “good ideas” can be a few times a month. In our group at PARC there is a lot of beer drinking, biking, tennis, and “recreational coding”.
At the ARPA-IPTO research community, we generated many great ideas. It’s a good idea to have a lot of ideas. for this). The day to day “good ideas” can be a few times a month. In our group at PARC there is a lot of beer drinking, biking, tennis, and “recreational coding”.
- What is the most productive format for learning and generating ideas that you and the coolest engineers from Xerox PARC used (reading, individual reflections, playing golf, barking beer with the whole crowd, brainstorming, hakathons)?
First, most of the founders of PARC came from the research community formed at the IPTO at ARPA, where many exciting ideas were invented since 1962. Most of the ideas are medium, if not worse, so two heuristics are important - you need (a) to have a lot of ideas, and (b) to have a way to prevent their repetition and uncontrolled growth (writing ideas into notebooks is a good solution). As a result, good ideas will appear somewhere a couple of times in a month. At PARC, we talked a lot with each other - drank beer, rode bicycles, played tennis, and engaged in “health coding.”
Question 3
original
3) Who inspired you in childhood (scientists, discoverers, philosophers)?
Scientists, science fiction writers, musicians, artists, other thinkers. Examples are: Einstein, Robert Heinlein, Bach, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Bertrand Russell.
Scientists, science fiction writers, musicians, artists, other thinkers. Examples are: Einstein, Robert Heinlein, Bach, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Bertrand Russell.
- Who was an example for you in childhood (scientists, discoverers, philosophers)?
- Scientists, science-fiction writers, musicians, actors, and other thinkers. For example: Einstein, Robert Heinlein, Bach, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Bertrand Russell.
Question 4
original
4) What are your favorite Sci-Fi books? Do you read books of Strugatsky brothers? (If yes, please share your thoughts and ideas.)
There are so many favorites - so will come back to this.
There are so many favorites - so will come back to this.
- What is your favorite science fiction book? Have you read the works of the Strugatsky? (If yes, then share your thoughts on these works.)
- I do not know how best to answer this questions - too many favorite writers - I will return to this question.
Question 9
original
9) How much did you want to devote to thinking “in future” (10%, 40%, 70%?). “Think about the future from the future.” games)?
(And don't know how to). But it’s always a matter of fact. - and, the way I want to think - there is a lot of overlap between these two areas.
I am pretty sure that I’m pretty much 24 hours a day. You probably spend about 3-4 hours a day trying to help.
“Relaxing” helps a lot. It is a very important way to learn. Dealing with the many kinds of “blindnesses” we all have is another important set of skills. It is not a good idea. on the back of the stove for awhile).
If you want to see it, it’s not.
(And don't know how to). But it’s always a matter of fact. - and, the way I want to think - there is a lot of overlap between these two areas.
I am pretty sure that I’m pretty much 24 hours a day. You probably spend about 3-4 hours a day trying to help.
“Relaxing” helps a lot. It is a very important way to learn. Dealing with the many kinds of “blindnesses” we all have is another important set of skills. It is not a good idea. on the back of the stove for awhile).
If you want to see it, it’s not.
- How much time do you allocate to thoughts about the future / of the future (10%, 40%, 70%)? Can you give a couple of practical advice to people who want to pump their ability to “think about the future from the future” (maybe read more science fiction, or, conversely, more historical books, or play old computer games)?
I do not think about all possible types of the future (and indeed I have no idea how to do this). What really matters to me is a list of those or other "problems." For example - “what needs to be done so that people of tomorrow can think better than people of today”? “How can we better understand and create systems of any type?” These two problems are highly interrelated, in my opinion.
I am quite sure that this process of thinking takes place constantly in my head 24 hours a day. Perhaps, I spend 3-4 hours a day actively thinking and working on things that allow me to better understand my list of “problems”.
"Leisure" helps a great deal. One of the very useful skills is the ability to be very critical, and, at the same time, not to succumb to depression. Another skill is to be able to work with different types of so-called. "Blindness." Most ideas are very mediocre, if not worse. At the same time, to be critical, you can skip potentially good ideas — and let ideas run like a stream, and write down those that look promising (methodologically, it’s better not to take good ideas right away — you need to put them off for a while to come to when it becomes clearer that they are really good).
You can draw an analogy with night vision (the eye is more sensitive outside the central fossa of the retina) - if you want to look at a star, then it is better to look not at it itself, but at its edges.
Danila Kornev
(CEO, Zet Universe, Post-PC devices). Few keywords: dynamic ontologies, zoomable user interfaces, semantic data processing, Previously worked at Microsoft, Google, and Microsoft Research. Microsoft’s Productivity Future Vision 2019.)Question 10
original
10) Do you think about it?
I think that you’ve seen something like that.
I think that you’ve seen something like that.
- Do you think there is a place for innovation in the so-called? digital working environments, or is the desktop metaphor and personal AI assistants the end of innovation in this area?
- In my opinion, nothing breakthrough has yet happened - and there is plenty of space for innovation and new inventions (and these promising developments are very, very necessary!)
Question 11
original
11) If you’ve gotten a little bit more information, you’re getting What are the foundational elements of interactions?
Zoomable interfaces happened to be a long time before the document. For example, the Sketchpad was not only the first modern interactive graphics system. But it also had a zoomable interface. Nicholas Negroponte’s “Arch-Mac” research group for the “Spatial Data Management System”.
Zoomable interfaces happened to be a long time before the document. For example, the Sketchpad was not only the first modern interactive graphics system. But it also had a zoomable interface. Nicholas Negroponte’s “Arch-Mac” research group for the “Spatial Data Management System”.
“If you don’t think that innovation in digital workflows is over, what do you think of zoomed user interfaces as the basis for alternative digital work environments?” (Zoom user interfaces were promoted by Jeff Raskin himself, and today we have a lot of 2-in-1 form factor tablets, and there is an augmented reality, where natural user interfaces rely on spatial memory).
- The zoomed user interfaces were born long before Jeff Raskin (he was not very attentive to documenting the sources of his ideas). For example, Sketchpad was not only the first modern interactive graphics system (and this was in 1962, the year!), But it also had a zummed interface. Another very important example is the early zoomed graphical interface developed by the Arch-Mac Nicholas Negroponte group in the 1970s for the Spatial Data Management System project.
Danila Medvedev
(Applied futurologist, immortality, cryonics, Intelligence amplification)Question 14
original
14) Overlapping windows ... this is what you need to make. Do you need to overlapping windows?
If you have a big display surface. It was an overwhelming idea. It is not clear how much it can be resolved. Another point is that “It’s not Big Data that’s important but Big Meaning!”
If you have a big display surface. It was an overwhelming idea. It is not clear how much it can be resolved. Another point is that “It’s not Big Data that’s important but Big Meaning!”
“Once overlapping windows were a useful invention, but today, when we work with huge amounts of information, overlapping windows make it difficult to organize information in the workspace. What prospects do you see in solving this problem of “overlapping windows”?
- If you have a huge display surface - real or virtual - then you do not need overlapping windows. Initially, our idea was to solve the problem of very small screens - overlapping windows on them were a great solution. “Huge amounts of information” cannot be dealt with by simply enlarging screens (after all, information objects must fit within the scope of what the human brain can simultaneously realize and understand). And one more thing - Big Data is not as important as Big Meaning.
Question 15
original
15) What are your primary working tools?
My primary working tools, especially with drawing. It has been taken for a few seconds. at people who can really draw.
The next level is books and reading in general. Again, industry paper. It can be read.
It is a good idea to find out about it.
I need to play music every day.
My primary working tools, especially with drawing. It has been taken for a few seconds. at people who can really draw.
The next level is books and reading in general. Again, industry paper. It can be read.
It is a good idea to find out about it.
I need to play music every day.
- What tools form your personal workspace on the computer?
“My main work tools are all that lies between my ears and my hands, especially when it comes to drawing.” (even during the development of the Dynabook concept, I said that the tablet should have a pen, and it should support drawing, and I was deeply distressed by how long it took the industry to do at least this, and at least on tablet PCs) . And the level of support for drawing, which is in the tablets, it does not reach the level of those who really know how to draw.
At the next level, we have books and reading in general. And again, the industry has not yet produced anything as easy to read as ordinary paper. What the industry has managed to do is not very convenient for those who like to read.
Even higher in the list of my tools for work is a comfortable sofa - you can stretch out on it, read and write.
I need to play a musical instrument every day.
Question 16
original
16) Aren't you disappointed with what computers turned into: games, porn, twitter, etc.?
I'm disappointed with the combination of the consumer and the very poor education system. Computers are the instruments for music with the best violins, etc. or the most beautiful music. Humans.
And see the answer to 15.
I'm disappointed with the combination of the consumer and the very poor education system. Computers are the instruments for music with the best violins, etc. or the most beautiful music. Humans.
And see the answer to 15.
“Are you not disappointed with what computers have become?” Toys, porn, twitter and so on?
- I am disappointed with consumer businesses and a very, very bad educational system. Computers can be compared to musical instruments, their music is ideas; As you know, you can manage to get terrible sounds, even when using the world's best violin, and you can play the most unusual piece of music. So, you should stick your finger at the users themselves.
See the answer to question №15.
Question 17
original
17) Doug Engelbart human intellect including group intellect. Why was he ultimately denied a chance to fulfill his vision of augmentation?
Doug was denied a chance. It was Doug helped create.
Doug was denied a chance. It was Doug helped create.
- Douglas Engelbart dreamed of using computers to enhance human intelligence, including collective intelligence. Why wasn't he given the chance to realize his concept of reinforcement?
- I do not think that Dagu something forbidden. There were several problems, including those mentioned in the answer to the 16th question. Most people didn’t understand why personal computers were invented, not to mention the great ideas that Doug helped bring to life.
Question 18
original
18) Did OLPC achieve all goals that you envisioned for DynaBook in terms of pedagogy?
Not even close.
Not even close.
- Has the OLPC project achieved all the pedagogical tasks that you set in the days of DynaBook?
“Not even close by.”
Question 19
original
19) What are the next steps for the OLPC project?
It is worthwhile. The next few years could be another one.
It is worthwhile. The next few years could be another one.
- What awaits OLPC in the future?
- For me, it would be a great idea to repeat a project of this kind every 10-15 years. In a few years it will be the most it will start a new such project.
Question 20
original
20) What did you manage to do, where you failed?
This question I don't quite understand. But the main idea is to “keep on keeping on”
This question I don't quite understand. But the main idea is to “keep on keeping on”
- What did you achieve in the OLPC project, and where did you fail?
- Honestly, I did not quite understand this question. But the basic idea is simple - you need to continue to "continue."
Anatoliy levenchuk
(scientific advisor, System Management School)Question 21
original
21) There were major changes in connectivity modeling. If you still have the computer computer? Connectivity-based computing?
- I do not think I understand the first question. Correlation modeling, for example, correlation modeling just reactions. (Minsky's “Society of Mind” book is still a good guide to all of these different paradigms.)
To me, it’s a classic computer revolution. In other words, it is “much better” than what was happening with most human development. (I would like to talk about retrograde communication.)
- I do not think I understand the first question. Correlation modeling, for example, correlation modeling just reactions. (Minsky's “Society of Mind” book is still a good guide to all of these different paradigms.)
To me, it’s a classic computer revolution. In other words, it is “much better” than what was happening with most human development. (I would like to talk about retrograde communication.)
- Over the past five years, connective modeling has taken a huge step forward. Does Alan Kay consider that this is part of the next computer revolution that has finally begun, or is he still waiting for the classical computer revolution (which will not start at all) and would not mix symbolist and connectionist computing?
- I think I did not quite understand the first question. As for the second, then, I think, for any kind of so-called. “Correlation modeling” (such as neural networks, “deep learning”, etc.) it is very important to be paired with “cognitive modeling”, which uses reflective models and knowledge simulations, rather than just reactions. (Minsky’s Society of Mind is still a great introduction to all the paradigms of this kind).
For me, the classic computer revolution lies in the idea of not just giving a person a set of tools that strengthen the human mind, but also help better shape the human mind. In other words, what happens “between the ears” plays a very important role - and so on. The pioneers wanted to improve these processes in comparison with everything that mankind had during most of its history. (I would say that today what is happening “between the ears” in people who, for the most part, use computers for entertainment and social communications, can be called “retrograde”.
Question 22
original
22) What's your take on Julia programming language as the next gen scientific computing programming language, coming after Fortran-Matlab-Python?
— I don't know how to criticize a language that has lots of features without trying to do a major project in it (and I haven't tried Julia). I think scientific models eventually require simulations — and these eventually imply loosely coupled objects — and it's hard to see in the descriptions of Julia whether these are part of what's optimized as a center of the design.
— I don't know how to criticize a language that has lots of features without trying to do a major project in it (and I haven't tried Julia). I think scientific models eventually require simulations — and these eventually imply loosely coupled objects — and it's hard to see in the descriptions of Julia whether these are part of what's optimized as a center of the design.
- How do you feel about the language of Julia, which is now slowly coming to the role of the leading language of scientific computing after the Fortran-Matlab-python?
- Hmm, I don’t think that I have ideas on how to criticize a programming language, and even with such a rich functionality, without trying to write at least one big project on it (and I did not try to write programs in the Julia language). In my opinion, scientific models ultimately need simulations — and they, in turn, need weakly-related objects — and judging by the documentation for the Julia programming language, it is not very clear how these weakly-related objects are the center whole language, or are not.
Question 23
original
23) What's the biggest achievement of VPRI in the last year/five years?
Take a look at the Viewpoints “Writings” page and see for yourself.
Take a look at the Viewpoints “Writings” page and see for yourself.
- What do you consider the main achievement of VPRI for the last year / 5 years?
- Take a look at the Writings section on my website at the Viewpoints Research Institute , and judge for yourself.
Pavel luksha
(Educator, systemic social innovation catalyst, futurologist, global education forum (www.edu2035.org))Question 24
original
24) We are already deep in the information age, and impact of new technologies has become evident even for the mass public. People voice various significant risks of emergent technologies such as autonomous robotics and machine learning, from massive global destruction of jobs to civilizational existential risks. Yes, these threats have been with us for a while (similar discussions occurred even in early 1970s), but now they are evident and accumulating. In this context, suppose we talk of «positive» future scenarios in which humans and technosphere do not compete with each other, but coexist and cocreate in positive and productive ways. What are your top picks for «skills for complex society» (individual and maybe collective) that need to developed massively, in order to increase the probability of this scenario, and for humanity to realize the opening opportunity for evolutionary leap forward?
I think an approach to this question might best start with the amount of new clean energy (both with regard to emissions and to heat created) that can be made available via science and technology. This will establish goals for dealing with all of the basics in equitable ways (including population).
Under such circumstances, the biggest skills needed will be “systems awareness” along many dimensions (including not just cooperation, but understanding that systems shouldn't be “gamed”), and skills that deal with “growth”, avoiding boredom, and finding excitement without the need for greed, war, power, etc.
This will be a very tough collection of new things for human beings to learn fluently. And as you said, these issues have been around for a long time. There has been some excellent writing about them eg many of Bertrand Russell's books starting about 100 years ago dealt with many of these issues.)
I think an approach to this question might best start with the amount of new clean energy (both with regard to emissions and to heat created) that can be made available via science and technology. This will establish goals for dealing with all of the basics in equitable ways (including population).
Under such circumstances, the biggest skills needed will be “systems awareness” along many dimensions (including not just cooperation, but understanding that systems shouldn't be “gamed”), and skills that deal with “growth”, avoiding boredom, and finding excitement without the need for greed, war, power, etc.
This will be a very tough collection of new things for human beings to learn fluently. And as you said, these issues have been around for a long time. There has been some excellent writing about them eg many of Bertrand Russell's books starting about 100 years ago dealt with many of these issues.)
— « ». , , , — . , ( 1970-), , . , , , . ( , , ) , — , ?
- I suppose, to answer this question, it is worthwhile to begin to figure out what the approximate amounts of clean energy (including emissions and heat) we can produce thanks to science and technology. This will help us determine further targets, and with them - indicators (including size of population, etc.).
In such conditions, one of the most important qualities or abilities will be the ability to “understand the system, take it into account, and its feedback” in a variety of dimensions at the same time (and this is not only about cooperation, but also about the need to understand that you should not try beat "system). The other most important abilities will be those associated with “growth”, the fight against boredom, and the ability to enjoy, admire life without the need for war, envy, power, etc.
In my opinion, there are many things ahead that people will have to learn very quickly. As you said, all these problems have existed for many years. There were some very remarkable thoughts about these problems, for example, in the books of Bertrand Russell, about a hundred years ago, where he tried to figure out how to solve these difficulties.
Question 25
original
25) The project of creating tools for «augmented intelligence», including input and output interfaces, that you at PARC and Doug Engelbart at SRI have been implementing since 1960s, has only found partial way into massive ICT applications. What would be the main avenues for future development of interfaces (and maybe complementary skills of children and adults?) that would help complete this unfinished revolution? As part of the question: what do you think of the potential of neural interfaces? Do you envisage them as one of the indispensable components of human-machine interfaces as the complexity of social life and technosphere increases further into 21st century?
I don't view neural interfaces as indispensable (first we need to get human brain-minds working better, etc.) The current day shows us what improved communications technologies wind up being used for if humans aren't helped to improve their brain-minds!
Both Doug and I (and others) thought then that enormous changes to general education would be needed to make use of the new tools and media (what would a person use a violin for if they didn't learn how to play it?)
And, given that, it's clear that what his and my groups did 40-50 years ago was just a bare start at what's needed. It's definitely time for another pass at these problems. (Bret Victor is a really great young thinker about these issues)
I don't view neural interfaces as indispensable (first we need to get human brain-minds working better, etc.) The current day shows us what improved communications technologies wind up being used for if humans aren't helped to improve their brain-minds!
Both Doug and I (and others) thought then that enormous changes to general education would be needed to make use of the new tools and media (what would a person use a violin for if they didn't learn how to play it?)
And, given that, it's clear that what his and my groups did 40-50 years ago was just a bare start at what's needed. It's definitely time for another pass at these problems. (Bret Victor is a really great young thinker about these issues)
— “ ”, “-”, 1960- PARC, SRI, — . , , (, , ) “ ”?
: ? , “-” (, 21 )?
- For me, so neural interfaces are not as irreplaceable as it may seem (and in general, for the beginning it is necessary that human minds learn to work more efficiently by themselves). Today it can be seen that even the most effective communication technologies used by people do not help their minds to become more efficient!
Both Doug, and I, and our colleagues, we all believed that in order for new media tools to bring maximum benefit, a grandiose transformation of general education is needed (after all, what can a person do with a violin if he doesn’t know how to play it? ?)
Thus, what we did with our group 40-50 years ago is only a small fraction of what needs to be done. And now is a great time for a new attempt to solve these problems (Bret Victor is a terrific young thinker in this field).
26
original
26) So far, technologies have been able to make only limited transformative impact on education. And, as you have yourself stated in one of your interviews, «music is not in the piano», it is not the matter of technologies but of the way in which they are applied. If you were to nominate top three necessary changes in the *social* context of new technologies to make impact on the next generation of learners, what would these be?
Yes, “the music is not in the piano”, but because of the piano we can wind up with great music that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The great music happened in the minds of artists who contemplated some of the musical possibilities of the new instruments. (And some of the instruments happened because of some of the new possibilities for music in the minds of the composers!) It's hard to think about any of these areas without considering how co-evolution of ideas, works, tools, and media all intertwine.
Many of the inventions that contribute to “civilization” are “anti-genetic” in several senses (a) they are not found “naturally” in traditional cultures, and (b) they often oppose a genetic tendency that is thought to be natural (for example: revenge, inequality, etc.)
If we look for “natural things” that get us into trouble, we can find many: for example: stories, desire for status and power, envy, desires for revenge, etc. Take a look at Anthropology's list of several hundred “human universals” (Donald Brown etc.) and pick your favorites to be opposed by better forms of education.
Yes, “the music is not in the piano”, but because of the piano we can wind up with great music that wouldn't have happened otherwise. The great music happened in the minds of artists who contemplated some of the musical possibilities of the new instruments. (And some of the instruments happened because of some of the new possibilities for music in the minds of the composers!) It's hard to think about any of these areas without considering how co-evolution of ideas, works, tools, and media all intertwine.
Many of the inventions that contribute to “civilization” are “anti-genetic” in several senses (a) they are not found “naturally” in traditional cultures, and (b) they often oppose a genetic tendency that is thought to be natural (for example: revenge, inequality, etc.)
If we look for “natural things” that get us into trouble, we can find many: for example: stories, desire for status and power, envy, desires for revenge, etc. Take a look at Anthropology's list of several hundred “human universals” (Donald Brown etc.) and pick your favorites to be opposed by better forms of education.
— “ ” , . , “ ”, , , . , , -?
- Yes, as they say, “music is not in the piano,” but it is thanks to the piano that we can play the greatest music in our history. And this greatest music was born in the minds of its creators due to the fact that the new musical instruments of their time gave them new opportunities to play this music. (and some of these instruments arose because these musicians invented new types of music that required these new instruments!). I would say that it is impossible to think about new areas of development without thinking about how ideas, works, tools and media evolve and evolve together.
If you think about it, it will be seen that most of the inventions that developed our civilization are not the product of “genetics” in the sense that they were not born “naturally” in traditional cultures ", and they very often go against the so-called" genetic "tendencies that seem natural (for example, revenge, inequality, etc.).
If you look for those things that are" natural "for a person and that cause us trouble, you can find many such things, for example: "," The desire for status and power "," envy "," the desire to revenge, ”etc. Look at the list of several hundred human universals (“ human universals ”see the book by Donald Brown, etc.), and choose teaching methods for working on those of them that interest you.
Question 27
original
27) Strategically — especially given your role in the constructivist «movement» as one of its key «ideologists» — what is in your opinion a preferred way of human beings to learn into the 21st century? Should they, for instance, learn more from self organized technology intense learning environments, or from and within groups of their peers organized as «communities of practice», or within more traditional institutional set-ups such as schools and universities «augmented» with certain technological and social innovations, or?
— I'm not much of an ideologist or any kind of “ist”. The real questions here have to do with (a) what needs to happen to the many parts of the brain-mind to achieve fluency in some pursuit? And (b) what are the best ways to get those changes to happen?
An important societal case is © how to deal with teaching and learning the subjects that the society has decided that everyone shall learn, whether they want to or not?
I've talked and written about some of this elsewhere. But for here, the simplest place to start might be to read Montessori's books (they are all good). The one she did towards the end of her life — The Absorbent Mind — is particularly good.
— I'm not much of an ideologist or any kind of “ist”. The real questions here have to do with (a) what needs to happen to the many parts of the brain-mind to achieve fluency in some pursuit? And (b) what are the best ways to get those changes to happen?
An important societal case is © how to deal with teaching and learning the subjects that the society has decided that everyone shall learn, whether they want to or not?
I've talked and written about some of this elsewhere. But for here, the simplest place to start might be to read Montessori's books (they are all good). The one she did towards the end of her life — The Absorbent Mind — is particularly good.
- Considering your role as one of the ideologists of the “constructivist" movement in education - what do you think will be the preferred way of educating people in the 21st century? For example, will they mainly study in self-organized digital media under the control of artificial intelligence, or various “community of practice” and project teams where they can learn from their colleagues and peers - or they will continue to study in more traditional formats, in schools and universities (taking into account that they will update with holding curriculum formats, or something else?
- I’m not very much an ideologue (and in general a “-log”). That’s what I’d really think about:
- a) What should happen to the many components of the human brain, so that he becomes well versed in a particular matter?
- b) What needs to be done to make this change?
- c) A very important point in the context of society as a whole. How can we deal with the teaching and study of subjects that society considers necessary to study regardless of whether the students want to study it or not?
I talked a lot about it and wrote ... But for starters, it’s best to start by reading the Montessori books (they are all very good). The book she wrote near the end of her life, The Absorbent Mind, is especially good.
Petr levich
(Head of Science, Technology and Society, Moscow; Founder at Future Foundation)Question 30
original
30) What's your opinion on the following possible approach:
What if we'd build a hackathon-like environment where any kind of technical experiments are allowed, w/o requirement to apply found solutions, or find a business model; where people would live and seek for the new meanings in the constantly changing and full of complexity world world? Would you be interested to participate in the creation of such an environment-space?
This is partly what Engelbart wanted to do.
One thing to ponder is that “improvisation” is quite different from “composing”, especially as you enter more and more developed areas. The pop culture likes to improvise and to consume improvisations, but is much less inclined towards the planning etc needed for more elaborate compositions. “Hackathons” are much too much about “doing” and not enough about “thinking”.
What if we'd build a hackathon-like environment where any kind of technical experiments are allowed, w/o requirement to apply found solutions, or find a business model; where people would live and seek for the new meanings in the constantly changing and full of complexity world world? Would you be interested to participate in the creation of such an environment-space?
This is partly what Engelbart wanted to do.
One thing to ponder is that “improvisation” is quite different from “composing”, especially as you enter more and more developed areas. The pop culture likes to improvise and to consume improvisations, but is much less inclined towards the planning etc needed for more elaborate compositions. “Hackathons” are much too much about “doing” and not enough about “thinking”.
- In your opinion, is it advisable to create a space with permission to experiment in a technical field, such a permanent hackathon mode, but without the mandatory applicability and availability of a business model where people would live and search for new meanings in a rapidly changing, complex world, prototyping new technologies on themselves? Would you be interested in creating such a project?
- Partly this is exactly what Engelbart wanted. An important nuance here is that “improvisation” and “composition” (creation) are far from the same thing. Mass culture is prone to improvise and consume improvisation, but planning and other activities necessary for creation or composition are not characteristic of it at all. In this context, “hackathons” are about “doing”, rather than “thinking”.
Ilya Sobol
(Inventor, entrepreneur, process / experience designer, making evangelist and maker)Question 31
original
31) What is you creative process? Do you use special methods to create ideas? Or its just periodical insights and matter of luck? Or may be you have a task to design and in process of problem solving this task you usually find unexpected solution? Or may be you have your own creative method?
“Luck” is a complex idea, but it does at least stand for “things happening you can't control”, and so it's a big factor in most creative processes in many ways. I answered this a little in question 15.
“Luck” is a complex idea, but it does at least stand for “things happening you can't control”, and so it's a big factor in most creative processes in many ways. I answered this a little in question 15.
- How do you come up with new ideas? These are insights, luck and chance, or do you still formulate for yourself some tasks, solving which, do you invent? Or do you have your own way?
- “Luck” is a complicated idea. It is partially behind the “things that are out of our control,” and it is an important factor in most creative processes. I wrote a little more about this in my answer to question no. 15.
Question 32
original
32) If your creative process based on problem solving approach, what was the problems you tried to solve when you found dynabook concept?
— My process is much more based on “problem *finding*” than problem solving (there's more in other parts of this document). The Dynabook was an extremely simple “vision” that matched up with what I thought was wonderful about what Seymour Papert was doing. In other words it was a “fit” into the qualitative universe of how to learn difficult to learn things.
— My process is much more based on “problem *finding*” than problem solving (there's more in other parts of this document). The Dynabook was an extremely simple “vision” that matched up with what I thought was wonderful about what Seymour Papert was doing. In other words it was a “fit” into the qualitative universe of how to learn difficult to learn things.
- If new ideas are the result of problem solving, what tasks or questions did you set yourself when you thought up a laptop / OOP / etc?
- My process is much more focused on “finding” problems, rather than on solving them (I wrote about this in other answers to the questions in this interview). So, Dynabook is a very, very simple idea, which coincided with the great work that Seymour Papert worked on. In other words, it was a way to “cling” to that cool universe, where people learn to study difficult things to learn .
Dmitriy Sudakov
(Education consultant, leader of Atlas of emerging jobs (atlas100.ru/en))Question 36
original
36) In the personal computing? We had PCs and laptops, then tablets and phones. What's next?
How to learn any of these?
How to learn any of these?
- what do you see as the next "big step" in the development of personal devices? We went from computers to laptops, then to tablets and smartphones. What's next?
“How to learn to use these tools effectively?”
Igor Trapeznikov
(Neuroscientist, cyborg and lifelogger. CEO AIcoda Co. LTD)Question 38
original
38) What did you do?
Most children start off somewhat curious, but are willing to accept stories as answers. I think I couldn’t have It seems to be a little bit more than a few people who really read up.
Most children start off somewhat curious, but are willing to accept stories as answers. I think I couldn’t have It seems to be a little bit more than a few people who really read up.
- What in childhood was the development of your curiosity?
- Most children are born full of curiosity, but they are quite satisfied with the "stories" as answers to their questions. I think I was much more curious, and simple “stories” did not suit me. It is possible that the fact that I learned to read more or less at a very early age, played a large part, and reading a large number of books, as we know, greatly expands the human horizon, and only kindles curiosity.
Question 39
original
39) People think in terms of knowledge and technologies?
I'll come back to this one. We are blind. ” This is a kind of meta-knowledge.
I'll come back to this one. We are blind. ” This is a kind of meta-knowledge.
- What do you think is not enough humanity in terms of knowledge and technology?
- I will return to this issue. The simplest answer is “we cannot learn to look until we realize that we are blind”, and most people do not realize that they are blind. This is a kind of meta-knowledge - and if used, it completely changes the very approach to learning and to knowledge.
Shapelez is a good man. He is very good at warning, and therefore we have a block of corporate issues. Do as Shapelez .
Qrator Labs (DDoS mitigation and network availability)
Alexander Lyamin
(founder and the CEO of Qrator Labs)Question 40
original
40) In the interview, he said: “ give you a few more key benchmarks! I wouldn’t have been able to get a flop, . "
This year even consumer processesors are sold at 8-cores, top mainstream processors are dozens-core. So the processor industry has taken a turn, according to Knuth. How do you evaluate the situation in the nearest decade?
Interesting question. If you don’t have any ideas, it’s not a problem. However, the chip manufacturers (eg Intel and Motorola) were never interested in ideas (or really even in software).
It’s not * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *)
It goes in the 60s.
This year even consumer processesors are sold at 8-cores, top mainstream processors are dozens-core. So the processor industry has taken a turn, according to Knuth. How do you evaluate the situation in the nearest decade?
Interesting question. If you don’t have any ideas, it’s not a problem. However, the chip manufacturers (eg Intel and Motorola) were never interested in ideas (or really even in software).
It’s not * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *)
It goes in the 60s.
- Donald Knut, in an interview from 2008, said: “For me, everything looks like the hardware developers have exhausted all the ideas and are trying to shift the blame for the imminent demise of Moore's Law on software authors, providing machines that work faster only in certain situations and with specific benchmarks. I won’t be surprised if the whole multi-threaded idea turns out to be a dummy, worse than the Itanium approach which should have been “so lost” until it became clear that the desired compiler cannot be written in principle. " This year even ordinary consumer processors have become 8-core , top mainstream processors number their cores in dozens. Those. “took a wrong turn” processor industry, according to Knuth.
How do you assess what is happening and what do you think should and will happen to processors in the coming decade?
- Good question. A lot of good iron ideas that started in the early 60s were never used or implemented, so some engineers still have ideas. However, chip makers (such as Intel and Motorola) have never been interested in ideas (in fact, even in software).
The next set of answers is too long for this format - but it is between the lines and concerns the uselessness of compiling bad languages into multiprocessors. The right way is to create good languages and to give iron and design the opportunity to optimize these good ideas.
I certainly agree with the fact that the (processor) industry turned the wrong way - and the first such was done back in the distant 60s before the CPU began to be produced as an integrated system on a chip.
Alexander Azimov
(network architect Qrator Labs)Question 40
original
41) where are we? Advertisement context. Do you see ongoing risks in this field?
In the 19th century, the American writer Thoreau wrote that “we become our tools”. It has been studied since the 50s - such as the Marshall McLuhan.
In the 19th century, the American writer Thoreau wrote that “we become our tools”. It has been studied since the 50s - such as the Marshall McLuhan.
- From the world in which we use certain technologies, we are moving towards the world in which technologies use us. Contextual advertising is the most obvious and innocuous example. What risks do you see in this field?
“In the 19th century, American writer Toro said that“ we become tools of our own tools. ” This phenomenon has been studied by some people since the beginning of the 50s, such as Marshall McLuhan, and I see in this trend a big problem entailing potentially high risks.
Andrew Leskin
(software engineer Qrator Labs)Question 44
original
44) Where is the view, the whole OOP development is going? Do you agree on the middle between the functional and object-oriented programming? Is there a chance for evolving some new paradigm?
I thought about it. Take a look at the idea of “fluents” by John McCarthy, and “pseudotime” by a variety of researchers from Strachey onwards. It’s essentially that it’s essentially the essence of the data, not the OOP.
I thought about it. Take a look at the idea of “fluents” by John McCarthy, and “pseudotime” by a variety of researchers from Strachey onwards. It’s essentially that it’s essentially the essence of the data, not the OOP.
- Where do you think the development of the PLO is heading? Do you agree with the statement that OOP degenerates into something between object-oriented and functional programming? Is it possible to move into some other, new paradigm?
“There is absolutely no conflict with functional programming in how I thought about OOP (and what I meant by that). Look at the idea of "fluents" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_ (artificial_intelligence) by John McCarthy and the "pseudo-time" formulated by several researchers behind Streychi. The point is simply that people want to program imperatively and, as a result, are forced to call object-oriented programming what are in fact abstract data types, not OOP.
Anton Orlov
(software engineer Qrator Labs)Question 45
original
45) What are your computer programs? Is there a chance computers would help? How could we move this way?
Yes, I've been given a few talks along this lines. I don’t keep track of them. If I’m not talking about it, I’m saying
Yes, I've been given a few talks along this lines. I don’t keep track of them. If I’m not talking about it, I’m saying
- Given the progress in machine learning, is it possible to expect that the way of writing computer programs will change in the near future? That is, can computers themselves significantly help a person in writing programs? How to move in this direction?
- Yes, I have already spoken on this subject several times - there are records on YouTube, but I do not publish my own performances and do not even follow them. If there is time, I will try to find the most relevant one containing a few words on the subject of the question you asked.
Meklon
(Linux-admin, medicine researcher)Question 56
original
56) (3-7 years)? Many parents and children.
What are you thinking about? What do you think about TinkerToys in early childhood. It is a good idea.
What are you thinking about? What do you think about TinkerToys in early childhood. It is a good idea.
- How do you feel about immersing children into working with computers from an early age? Many very parents very severely limit this to at least 7 years.
- How about reading in early childhood? Or designer TinkerToys ? These are great ideas if the books are good and the tools are good.
Ivan Ponomarev
(Java programmer)Question 58
original
58) Paradigm, one of the keystrokes of the smalltalk language and OOP, it’s not a purely object-oriented multi-paradigm? It is still not fully understood, or it is the way programming languages evolve? (If you’re looking for what you’re looking for?),
Mulitparadigm is generally good. “Bad-paradigm” is almost always bad. Imperative programming with data structures (and using “setters” in “OOP”) is a very bad way to program. But combining good ways to program is good. Religions tend to be bad, because they’ve been hard times to tolerate multiple perspectives. So it would be a very good thing. There is a possibility to make a difference.
Mulitparadigm is generally good. “Bad-paradigm” is almost always bad. Imperative programming with data structures (and using “setters” in “OOP”) is a very bad way to program. But combining good ways to program is good. Religions tend to be bad, because they’ve been hard times to tolerate multiple perspectives. So it would be a very good thing. There is a possibility to make a difference.
- As one of the authors of the Smalltalk language and the OOP paradigm, how do you feel about the fact that the widely used programming languages do not adhere to a pure OOP, being essentially multi-paradigm? This is the result of the fact that the possibilities of pure OOP have been underestimated, or is it all right?
- Multi-paradigm in a programming language is, on the whole, good. Bad is when a bad paradigm is used in a language. Imperative programming using structures as well as “setters” in the “so-called OOP” are very bad ways to program. A religious cult becomes evil even if it tries to be good, because it faces difficulties in relation to various changes in the world - and it also happens that a cult arises about the wrong ideas. Therefore, to remove any “religious cult” from the computer sphere would be a great blessing. The real question is this: how to create systems in which “simple things would be simple, and complex things are possible.” This, among other things, implies the possibility of changing one's point of view on things over time, as well as the ability to make changes, expending a reasonable amount of effort.
Artiom Zheltov
(futurologist)Question 60
original
60) How did Xerox PARC developers get tasks to do? How did they identify / foresee problems that they've been solved with the tech they've developed at PARC?
The researcher organization at Parc was “flat”, no one was told to do anything. Because Xerox “counted heads” was used when we spent a few days. We’ve all come from the ARPA-IPTO research projects, and are carried out by us. There were “admired personalities”. There was a weekly meeting of all to sort things out. Interests were offered, pledges could be made. If you’ve spent your time, you’ll spend 20–30% of our time as “hands” for someone else (as a programmer or soldering, etc.).
There are always a number of projects around the “admired personalities” and “exciting projects” (eg Butler Lampson, Chuck Thacker, the Alto, Ethernet, etc). that persisted for varying lengths of time. My group - the Learning Research Group - persisted for most of 8 years.
The researcher organization at Parc was “flat”, no one was told to do anything. Because Xerox “counted heads” was used when we spent a few days. We’ve all come from the ARPA-IPTO research projects, and are carried out by us. There were “admired personalities”. There was a weekly meeting of all to sort things out. Interests were offered, pledges could be made. If you’ve spent your time, you’ll spend 20–30% of our time as “hands” for someone else (as a programmer or soldering, etc.).
There are always a number of projects around the “admired personalities” and “exciting projects” (eg Butler Lampson, Chuck Thacker, the Alto, Ethernet, etc). that persisted for varying lengths of time. My group - the Learning Research Group - persisted for most of 8 years.
Question 61
original
61) There's a hypothesis that you really needed it at that time. They were nice to have, awesome futuristic things. But 40 years later they became the foundational element of people's lives. If you’re looking for something like that?
It was needed at the time, it was realized. No thinking one can see it
It was needed at the time, it was realized. No thinking one can see it
- There is a hypothesis that those things that you created or invented were not claimed at the time. They were something to enjoy, amazing futuristic things. But 40 years later, they became the cornerstone in people's lives. In this situation, as you think, what amazing futuristic things, irrelevant in our day, will be able to solve some problems in the future?
- I would say that what we invented was relevant at one time, just almost no one realized. Try to imagine what is so necessary now, but does not occur to anyone?
Thank.
Publications in Russian:
“American business is completely fucked up because it is all about competition. But our world was created for mutually beneficial cooperation, and this is exactly what we need to train people. The best analogy is team sports. ”
- Happy birthday, Alan Keyǃ (or how to get +80 to IQ)
- Alan Kay: The future of "reading" depends on the future of "learning difficult to understand things"
- Biography of Alan Kay and key achievements
- Why Alan Kay dislikes Wikipedia, PowerPoint, OOP, and programming patterns
- Thousands of compact code
- Thousand-fold compact code] [
- How to raise people from our kids with the help of IT
- Why do kids think in differential geometry categories?
- Alan Kay about the future of programming
- System STEPS: twenty thousand lines of code that will change the programming, operating systems and the Internet
- Counterargument on Habré
PS
I think Engelbard was delighted with how Alan Kay answered questions in the mode of joint editing of the document.
Pps
What question would you ask Alan Kay?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/333778/
All Articles