>So my question is how do you set stuff up so that it automatically starts modelling and predicting what it observes (including self observations)?;)
Neurons.
(Of course):)
I think the headline of this article is simply deceptive in order to bring in the sort of publicity that the article has already received (say, from slashdot?) because he is not saying normal people should program, he is saying normal people are now able to get results similar to programming from things that programmers are making.
Including users in the "development process" is vague enough that it doesn't mean anything. That could just mean that your salesman has to talk to the users and tell you what they want. Hey, they've been included.
The practice of having a headline that says something only somewhat related to the actual content of the article is starting to become more commonplace. These kinds of articles get more buzz, because they say that the article contains content that is more interesting than it actually does.
The content of the article itself is simply too vague to be saying anything of real value.
Slashdot Mirror
>So my question is how do you set stuff up so that it automatically starts modelling and predicting what it observes (including self observations)? ;)
Neurons.
(Of course) :)
I think the headline of this article is simply deceptive in order to bring in the sort of publicity that the article has already received (say, from slashdot?) because he is not saying normal people should program, he is saying normal people are now able to get results similar to programming from things that programmers are making. Including users in the "development process" is vague enough that it doesn't mean anything. That could just mean that your salesman has to talk to the users and tell you what they want. Hey, they've been included. The practice of having a headline that says something only somewhat related to the actual content of the article is starting to become more commonplace. These kinds of articles get more buzz, because they say that the article contains content that is more interesting than it actually does. The content of the article itself is simply too vague to be saying anything of real value.