Hey, it's understandable to see the interviewer as not always handling the question asking in ways that would keep everyone happy, but the very fact that the interview happened at all and that it revealed at least some new things about important aspects of the history of computing and that it's all preserved for posterity leaves us all significantly in the debt of all concerned with this unquestionably seminal interview.
He's not interrupting. He's kinda helping the old Scientist remember some things. You can see clearly, Prof. McCarthy forgot some things and not able to elaborate on some topics.
Pst, dude, wrong McCarthy. This interview is with this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist) You are thinking about this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy The one in the video even said his parents were communists, lmao.
Have you considered that perhaps you are just rejecting it, not because of any reason to think it not possible, but to avoid the consequences that it might have with respect to your prior beliefs and assumptions? Its rejection also has big consequences. You are rejecting with it, the principles on which all science is based: the idea that all observable phenomena ultimately have material causes, and the idea that knowledge should be based upon observation. It brings consequences to fields like medicine, in which the link between the material brain (as well as endorphins, etc) and the immaterial mind play a huge role. Education, cognitive sciences, and related fields, in which the idea that the mind develops socially is a concept of central importance. If you are ready to abandon rationality in order to save the soul, as I suspect you are doing, go ahead. But be mindful of the price you are paying.
@@frechjo ...as for observation being the foundation of knowledge limits the potential for knowledge...All growth in the field of knowledge comes from thinking outside the box...
@@christopherraymond4826 "Thinking outside the box" does not contradict observation, it complements it. In any case, mine was an oversimplification (because formal systems, for instance, are within science, and not directly based on observation). Limits can be positive or negative, depending on what they actually leave out. If science had to contend with all sorts of divination, revelation, and however many means of forming ideas humanity has devised, it would become impossible. Trying to have a general distinction between knowledge and belief is useful in many ways.
@@frechjo ... theoretical physics which is another way of saying..."intuitive physics"...always seems to precede new foundational axioms...until they too become passe' for new vision of...reality...my new flavor of the month...chaos theory...which leads to... emergent theory, we just need a new... strange attractor...😃...
@@christopherraymond4826 Is this style of writing intentional? It makes it hard to follow what exactly you are trying to say. I can't see the connection in your ideas. Anyway, it seems you are suggesting that theoretical physics somehow disproves the value of observation? I hope you realize that in the absence of observation, practically any theoretical model for physics would be equally valid. It would all be purely abstract mathematics. There's a reason that models in physics are abandoned in favor of new ones, and the reason is the same as in any other science.
Ken thompson,dennis ritchie,john McCarthey numerous luminaries paved the world towards innovation
Hey, it's understandable to see the interviewer as not always handling the question asking in ways that would keep everyone happy, but the very fact that the interview happened at all and that it revealed at least some new things about important aspects of the history of computing and that it's all preserved for posterity leaves us all significantly in the debt of all concerned with this unquestionably seminal interview.
Good lord I wish the interviewer hadn't interrupted so much!
Can you imagine sitting down with John McCarthy and not letting him finish his thoughts?
He's not interrupting. He's kinda helping the old Scientist remember some things. You can see clearly, Prof. McCarthy forgot some things and not able to elaborate on some topics.
He was 80 years old when he had this interview
Thanks for sharing: very instructive!
The wizard of Oz as far as CS and AI are concerned.
Sad to hear such a brilliant person in his later years.
I'm sure he's not as sharp as he was, even a few years ago, but I interpreted it as mostly boredom: the interviewer is intolerable.
This interview is 10 years old. McCarthy passed away in 2011.
Indeed, you're right; I tend to forget things I wish weren't true. Pretend my comment is 10 years old; it still applies.
It turns out the universal model is attention trained over web data.
Oh hell yaeh!!! That chocalate milk he's drinking looks delicious!!!
ethernal achvimend of deep insitgh together with clearnest of way of thinking
R.I.P
thanks for resurection of importance o lambda calculus in LISP ang even beyound
metalinguistic f.ex. macros in LISP
eval/aplay
among more other things he is a philsopher...i like
Lisp is still the most powerful language!
So long as your env expressed context well.😂
艹, 十万个为什么, 我爸看过, 我也看过, 我还看过其它的类似体裁的少儿百科全书.
Good Night, And Good Luck (2005) Official Trailer - George Clooney, David Strathairn Movie HD ruclips.net/video/Pv4s0wdDOK0/видео.html
What is McCarthyism? And how did it happen? - Ellen Schrecker ruclips.net/video/N35IugBYH04/видео.html
i.ibb.co/KqmJNww/101.jpg
Pst, dude, wrong McCarthy.
This interview is with this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)
You are thinking about this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy
The one in the video even said his parents were communists, lmao.
... artificial intelligence is an... oxymoron...hello...
Have you considered that perhaps you are just rejecting it, not because of any reason to think it not possible, but to avoid the consequences that it might have with respect to your prior beliefs and assumptions?
Its rejection also has big consequences. You are rejecting with it, the principles on which all science is based: the idea that all observable phenomena ultimately have material causes, and the idea that knowledge should be based upon observation.
It brings consequences to fields like medicine, in which the link between the material brain (as well as endorphins, etc) and the immaterial mind play a huge role. Education, cognitive sciences, and related fields, in which the idea that the mind develops socially is a concept of central importance.
If you are ready to abandon rationality in order to save the soul, as I suspect you are doing, go ahead. But be mindful of the price you are paying.
@@frechjo ...as for observation being the foundation of knowledge limits the potential for knowledge...All growth in the field of knowledge comes from thinking outside the box...
@@christopherraymond4826
"Thinking outside the box" does not contradict observation, it complements it.
In any case, mine was an oversimplification (because formal systems, for instance, are within science, and not directly based on observation).
Limits can be positive or negative, depending on what they actually leave out. If science had to contend with all sorts of divination, revelation, and however many means of forming ideas humanity has devised, it would become impossible.
Trying to have a general distinction between knowledge and belief is useful in many ways.
@@frechjo ... theoretical physics which is another way of saying..."intuitive physics"...always seems to precede new foundational axioms...until they too become passe' for new vision of...reality...my new flavor of the month...chaos theory...which leads to... emergent theory, we just need a new... strange attractor...😃...
@@christopherraymond4826
Is this style of writing intentional? It makes it hard to follow what exactly you are trying to say. I can't see the connection in your ideas.
Anyway, it seems you are suggesting that theoretical physics somehow disproves the value of observation?
I hope you realize that in the absence of observation, practically any theoretical model for physics would be equally valid. It would all be purely abstract mathematics.
There's a reason that models in physics are abandoned in favor of new ones, and the reason is the same as in any other science.