Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Wed 6th Nov 2002 00:19 UTC
Yeah, I might be just re-inventing the wheel here, who knows? But I had this (original? I doubt it) idea a few months ago and I was meant to write about it for some time now. So, my idea is about creating a new operating system that is like none of the current ones. It would be so different, that porting applications from other "traditional" systems wouldn't be possible. But the gains would be much more important of what we would lose by implementing a brand new new system.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A key part of what makes really great apps so great is that they provide a clean environment for the user to do work. I hear you with regards to everything-and-the-kitchen-sick apps like Photoshop, but to the people who have careers that revolve around these products (flash devs and Macromedia's studio tools, or Visual Studio come to mind) it's not just about having a thousand tiny little tools to get the job done. There is something to be said about having an integrated toolbox.
Your proposal doesn't address how it impacts the biggest concern of all in terms of providing 'context'. Now, this is not an easily definable term, but it's what a coder feels in his or her favorite text editor, or what a musician feels in his or her favorite piece of music software. It's a feeling of oneness with the workflow and the mental/virtual spacing of the tools and the feeling that one can 'consume' the application into one's mind. You gloss over this by saying that this is something that it'd have to address, but what you are describing is the exact opposite of context in the workspace sense without giving any detail of how that might work. Modules and file-type based context? Well... no duh. But that's a _TINY_ part of the usabilty picture once you do away with modality.
And as for AI.. gimmie a break...
First off: self modifying code is the key to AI and x86 chips don't allow it in 32bit mode (data/code pages in memory are totally unique). The code in your mind rewrites itself CONSTANTLY. The difference between 'information' and 'logic' is an illusion.
Second, consider this thought experiment: Suppose you could have a conventional computer (not quantum, just like the one you are looking at) of whatever complexity and power that you wish. And suppose you had two bits of data:
- the PRECISE layout of the molecules of your brain at the moment of birth
...and...
- a dataset that describes EVERY SINGLE BIT OF INPUT that your have experienced in your life and the exact moment (touch, taste, smell, vision, etc.) as well as environmental conditions (chemical influences, injuries, etc.) that directly acted upon your brain.
So basically we have all the data that defines your entire life. Now.... the magic question is: at what level of detail do you need to simulate this in order to recreate EXACTLY who you are today? Cell level? Molecular level? Lower? Individual protons, etc? The problem is that at that low of a level quantum influence takes hold and you get genuine randomness that can not be factored out. The truth at the core of this discussion is of course that, because we exist in the physical reality, our intellect is a product of the inherent randomness in that reality. Any time that we create an artificial reality we can not expect intelligence to rise out of that reality until we can introduce the same level of randomness to that creation. Which we can't do right now, and it's not clear that we'll ever be able to with conventional machines.