Respectfully I disagree. I believe what Dijkstra is getting at is that the specifics of modern computers aren’t “relevant” at all. Ultimately it’s the science of information and whats computable. Be that a modern day silicon processor at X gigahertz, a pen and paper, or a universe sized computer, that’s irrelevant for the science itself.

We don’t actually disagree. Note that Dijkstra did not say “modern computer.” He said “computer.” Computer science is in a major way about what “is computable.”

> I have always found this quote annoying

"Mission accomplished." -(fake) E.W. Dikjstra

My strong impression/suspicion is that Dijkstra had a great sense of humor and also enjoyed irritating people; it's puzzling when people take things like his comments on programming languages as serious rather than tongue-in-cheek, but I suspect he would have been amused.

I learned today that apparently Dijkstra won the Dijkstra prize in 2002. (I'm not sure what the qualifications are, but if I were to choose then it would be awarded to the most brilliant, and irritating, computer scientist who has made a groundbreaking contribution to a particular field.)

> There are many ways to solve problems, but when you constrain yourself to solving them mechanistically, that is what makes computer science computer science.

How would one solve a computational problem non-mechanistically? Even if executed with pen and paper, or sticks scribbling on sand, any algorithm is still mechanistic.

Non-algorithmically, using intuition, like a (non-programmer) human.

But is it a computational problem then?

Try doing a calculus problem. E.g., integration. Even if you do it on paper, your approach is probably wildly different than a computer integration algorithm. An algorithm that does it symbolically, ala Mathematica, is a pretty difficult thing to write for an arbitrary mathematical expression. People solve those problems largely through intuition, with a sprinkling of procedures that they remember.

> People solve those problems largely through intuition, with a sprinkling of procedures that they remember.

Without making the claim that LLMs have intuition (and certainly not inspiration), what you describe sounds analogous to an LLM with function calling.