News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub is planning Voice to Code by mjburgess on Thursday November 10, 2022 @05:05AM (#33544435)
I think there's a difference between communicating your intent to a machine, which is hopeless since it has no model of intention; and commanding a machine to reproduce something.

Ie., when you're managing your house you want something that can be communicated in an infinite number of ways, but the "AI" accepts a tiny finitude of ways.

However when programming it seems like we arent asking the machine to "write a function to do X", but rather saying, "def open-paren star args...."

This seems like a pretty trivial problem to solve.

Re:GitHub is planning Voice to Code by dustedcodes on Thursday November 10, 2022 @05:08AM (#33544453)
> However when programming it seems like we arent asking the machine to "write a function to do X", but rather saying, "def open-paren star args...."

Click the link first and take a look at what is being showcased, because your comment is the exact opposite of what they demo when you visit the HN link.

Re:GitHub is planning Voice to Code by mjburgess on Thursday November 10, 2022 @05:33AM (#33544617)
You're right... So, yes, it will be largely useless (as shown) for actual programming.

But I suspect there'll be a subset of its features consistent with my comment that will be actually useful.

Programming, via Naur/Ryle, is always a kind of theory building. And unless you're basically copy/pasting, it's a novel theory of some area (, business process, etc.).

That's something where intentions arent even really communicable as such, since the art of programming is sketching possible theories as a way of finding out what we ought intend.

So this is another gimmik with maybe marginal improvements at the edges.