Please forgive me as, from this point forward, I use the American spelling of "color." (I will try not to get carried away, lest I find myself attending "Center College.")
It seems to me that the people who think that bits have color, to continue the metaphor, are the same people who think that computers are intelligent.
Also, I was very dissatisfied with the author's assertion that source is color. The same bits that compose any of Shakespeare's sonnets are never going to be generated by a random number generator. "Yeah, but they could." No, my computer would crash if I tried to compute how astronomically low the odds are. If Z were the universe's circumference in femtometers (meters * 10^-15), it would be 1 to Z^(Z^Z). Source is tangibly present. It is not the same as the "color' of the
two "4:33"s, which does not exist.
I got the impression that he was saying that source is a color, not that source is color.
ReplyDeleteI'm with lindsey on this one kris. The person was saying that things like the copyright of something are what is REPRESENTED by its color. The color was just a metaphor for things like copyright and such on objects. I'm not one to talk much on the piece as I got thrown off track when I saw how long it was and that it went from the point of anything being created by chance to the use of color in things like security but anyway. I think the point the guy was trying to reach in that section is that computer scientists think copyright on programs are stupid because even though the chance is low, it could be replicated by anyone through sheer dumb luck.
ReplyDeleteI am going to choose to ignore the condescension here. I realize that by "colour" the author of the article is referring to an abstract quality "that is not properly captured by bits at all and actually cannot be." The part I took issue with is that Shakespeare and "4:33" are apples and oranges. One matters, one does not, and juxtaposition of the two is hyperbole. But this is my humble opinion. Again, I also take issue with arguing a vague "feeling."
ReplyDeleteI cannot quite follow your point on 4:33 and WS's works. What do you mean "one matters and the other does not"? Is it that you see the probabilities of random generation as so different (WS's works as so low it does not matter)? Your second paragraph made me laugh (in appreciation!)
ReplyDelete