I suspect automated translation between s/w standards that were not built with awareness of each other is harder than translating between 2 languages.
-
-
The answer is, R2D2 is much easier if galaxy runs on a set of mutually intelligible co-evolved standards. Otherwise C3PO is easier. So C3POa-to-C3POb comms will only default to R2D2a-R2D2b commas in former case.
Show this thread -
Interesting question is whether computing systems will evolve with greater or lesser mutual awareness in the gutter as they diversify and speciate. I’ll bet on less.
Show this thread -
This likely means they’ll likely mostly communicate through an “air gap” protocol based on point-mimic-ground mutual learning in shared rich physical contexts. Your fridge and vacuum will learn each other the way a new cat learns to live with a resident dog.
Show this thread -
Conceptually my claim is that when there are no good shared maps, it’s actually easier to go to the territory to construct a new shared map in most cases than to try and merge incompatible maps. Circumstantial evidence is human communication, though that’s not a proof.
Show this thread -
The only alternative I can think of is some gigantic top-down common world-modeling architecture, like a “Windows World for IoT (now with Blockchain consensus for fridges and vacuums, featuring OpenCycAlphaGoWolframAlpha!)”
Show this thread -
I’ll throw in a pointer to Stalnaker in case anyone actually wants to go down this bunny trail of common-grounding communication http://web.mit.edu/philosophy/facultybibs/stalnaker_bib.html …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.