On 6/23/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Or it could simply mean that the vast majority of programmers and software > monkeys are mediocre at best such that the handful of people you will meet > with deep talent won't constitute a useful sample size. Hell, even Brooks > suggested as much and he was charitable. In all my years in software, I've > only met a small number of people who were unambiguously wicked smart when > it came to software, and while none of them could be confused with a > completely mundane person they also did not have many other traits in common > (though I will acknowledge they tend to rational and self-analytical to a > degree that is rare in most people though this is not a trait exclusive to > these people). Of course, *my* sample size is also small and so it does not > count for much.
I completely agree with all of the above, though it says nothing relevant to the point that I was trying to make. That point was that we and presumably our AGIs will use our experience to focus inquiry in complex situations. That these focused efforts fail more often than they succeed is good, compared with the disastrous alternative of failing 99.99% of the time because our inquiries are NOT focused. Again, as you apparently missed it on my previous email - what would you suggest as an alternative? > Similarly, over the course of >100 projects... >> > > Eh? Over 100 projects? These were either very small projects or you are > older than Methuselah. Both are correct. Also, I had many fewer employers, as I had a LOT of repeat business. These would sometimes bring me in for a couple of weeks of "shock treatment" when they felt it was needed. Steve Richfield ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
