
Ask HN: Will AI be able to create a more perfect programming language? - okareaman
This article prompted me to ask if an AI can produce self-modifying code, wouldn&#x27;t tend to evolve into a programming language better than any we have now?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org&#x2F;c&#x2F;s&#x2F;www.newsweek.com&#x2F;google-brain-artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-research-evolution-automl-zero-1497781" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www-newsweek-com.cdn.ampproject.org&#x2F;c&#x2F;s&#x2F;www.newsweek...</a>
======
mimixco
IMO, no. ML is about improving the training and results from an existing
dataset. No computer will ever be able to make the leap into _creating_ a
dataset that never existed; the best it can do is build something from pieces
and parts that were already available. In other words, a computer that can
play chess cannot teach itself to bake chocolate chip cookies (no ML; no
training for that), but a human can.

Language design, in fact the existence of language as we are discussing, is
the exclusive domain of humans. It takes humans to invent a new language (See
mine: [0]) because only humans can make the leap to something truly new.
Computers won't invent programming languages any more than they can paint real
paintings or make real music. Computer speech, writing, art, and music can
only be made from parts which were curated or defined by people.

[0][https://mimix.io/specs/](https://mimix.io/specs/)

~~~
Foober223
> No computer will ever be able to make the leap into creating

But aren't humans proof an inanimate set of atoms _can_ be creative? Electric
charge is pushing pressure through a psychical structure for both human brains
and man-made computers.

Unless there's something supernatural going on (ie having a soul), I'm
convinced real creativity can come from a variety of physical structures, from
carbon based human brains to silicon machines.

~~~
mimixco
That's an entirely different set of combinatorics. Life and ATP and energy
transport within cells arose from inanimate molecules and DNA is just
inanimate parts and that led to evolution and intelligence. A computer has far
more limited resources to work with (processor, memory, storage. That's it.)
and cannot "jump the box" in the way that is possible with chemistry and
physics that gives rise to chemistry.

------
tcbasche
> a programming language better than any we have now

This is so purely subjective it makes my head spin. What makes a programming
language _better_ than any other? Surely the right tool for the job, and the
tool that you have the most knowledge and experience in, is the 'best'
programming language.

It just strikes of that 'beginner-programmer' thinking where we latch onto
language_x and then proselytise it for no other reason than we are proficient
in it, without any self-awareness of our own opinions.

------
tlb
You have to define "better" better. Usually it's a measure of the productivity
of human programmers using it. So languages that match human thought patterns
are better. It's not clear that AIs would be good at optimizing for human
comprehension.

If AIs are writing code directly, they might work faster with a very
different-looking language that would be hard for people to design. So they
might evolve something for their own use.

------
croo
Brainfuck is better than any other programming language. It has only 8
different commands to use ( instead of the much more verbose GO programming
language ) and those commands are simple, one character long terms. From now
on every code will be simpler and shorter. The benefits are multiple fold -
more speed, easier compile optimalizations and for humans this is definetly
the easiest language to grasp.

~~~
kleer001
What about GolfScript?

------
sharemywin
Siri or her cousins will get better and better until there really isn't need
for "programming"

You'll just have a conversation. Maybe if your trained in one of those "old
programming languages" you might exchange pseudo code to get your point
across. or draw out a truth table.

------
AnimalMuppet
If it does, will it be a more perfect language for _humans_ to use, or just
more perfect for AIs?

------
kleer001
If they do it'll look a heck of a lot like lisp or one of its many flavours.

~~~
tcbasche
Surely that's purely subjective. I look at a lisp and gasp, but that's because
I've never really used it and am not used to it.

~~~
kleer001
Well, whatever it is it'll likely look like gibberish to humans without some
syntactic sugar. But my point is that it would likely share that data/code
macros business.

