Print

Print


Hi again,

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Patrick Durusau <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Just a quick second to Wendell's:
>
>> What isn't automatable is a process without an explicit specification,
>> or a process whose specification is incomplete or ambiguous. (One
>> might call the latter sort a process without a specification, or a
>> process whose spec is only nominal and not actual.)
>
> and to point out, automated or not, 'intelligence adding' will not be
> consistent or useful to others without specification, as complete and
> unambiguous as possible (there are always theoretical or practical limits).

Indeed, and this is an important point. The specification is part of
the intelligence; without the spec the so-called intelligence is only
noise -- or worse, misleading (you think you have signal but you're
wrong), because of the amazing human power to impose context.

(If you think there's an epistemological problem here, because the
specification too requires context to interpret correctly, you'd be
correct. The meta-Socratic dictum "I know less than I think I do" is
always useful to keep in mind.)

Cheers,
Wendell

-- 
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^