I probably should have read Computer Power and Human Reason years ago, when all this hype really started getting going. Honestly I should probably have read it in college when I was first getting into programming! But the next best time is now, so I borrowed: my mom's inscribed copy a few months ago (which to be fair she has also never read) and got started.
A lot of the first few chapters is fairly straightforward for anyone who has a basic grounding in computer science. Weizenbaum[1] is walking an odd line where he's trying to explain concepts like "turing machines" and "assembly languages" to a lay audience without sacrificing either rigor or a relatively academic tone. I'm curious how well this works for someone who genuinely has no prior exposure to this material; to me, all of this is review of the basics of the field, and so ended up feeling a little boring.
But then I got to this section which blew my socks clean off my feet (emphasis mine):
The idea that a person can write a program that embodies anything he "thoroughly understands" is at least equally problematical. Understanding something always means understanding it at a certain level. An actuary uses some fairly sophisticated mathematical tools whose fundamentals he almost certainly doesn't understand or care anything about. Everyone who makes change uses arithmetic, but very few people know or care much about the beautiful axiomatic system on which arithmetic is based. In effect, we all constantly use subroutines whose input-output behavior we believe we know, but whose details we need not and rarely do think about. To understand something sufficiently well to be able to program it for a computer does not mean to understand it to its ultimate depth. There can be no such ultimate understanding in practical affairs. Programming is rather a test of understanding. In this respect it is like writing; often when we think we understand something and attempt to write about it, our very act of composition reveals our lack of understanding even to ourselves. Our pen writes the word "because" and suddenly stops. We thought we understood the "why" of something, but discover that we don't. We begin a sentence with "obviously," and then see that what we meant to write is not obvious at all. Sometimes we connect two clauses with the word "therefore," only to then see that our chain of reasoning is defective. Programming is like that. It is, after all, writing too. But in ordinary writing we sometimes obscure our lack of understanding, our failures in logic, by unwittingly appealing to the immense flexibility of natural language and to its inherent ambiguity. The very eloquence that natural language permits sometimes illuminates our words and seems (falsely, to be sure) to illuminate our undeserving logic just as brightly. An interpreter of programming-language texts, a computer, is immune to the seductive influence of mere eloquence. And words like "obviously" are not represented in the primitive vocabularies of any computers. A computer is a merciless critic. Therefore the assertion that one understands a thing sufficiently well to be able to program it is, first of all, an assertion that one understands it in very particular terms. In any case, it can be no more than a boast that may well be falsified by experience.
The other side of the coin is the belief that one cannot program anything unless one thoroughly understands it. This misses the truth that programming is, again like any form of writing, more often than not experimental. One programs, just as one writes, not because one understands, but in order to come to understand. Programming is an act of design. To write a program is to legislate the laws for a world one first has to create in imagination. Only rarely does any designer, be he an architect, a novelist, or whatever, have so coherent a picture of the world emergent in his imagination that he can compose its laws without criticism from that world itself. That is precisely what the computer may provide.[2]
It is beyond my capacity to express how strange it was to see exactly the same argument I made articulated nearly fifty years earlier, without coding LLMs as a motivating factor, by my own grandfather. Maybe it's obvious to anyone who takes seriously the SICP principle that "computer language [...] is a novel formal medium for expressing ideas about methodology", although even that line was written eight years after Computer Power and Human Reason and may in fact have been inspired by it (both works came out of MIT, after all).
But even if it is obvious, it still strikes me as a shockingly prescient point to choose to emphasize at a point where automatically converting a vague high-level natural language description[3] into a full program was still science fiction. As I argued in my earlier post, the act of programming is critical to developing a human understanding of the logic being programmed, and a misunderstanding of this point is critical to the failures that lead people to believe that LLM-generated code could be useful for anything more than a band-aid over a gaping lack of suitable abstractions. Weizenbaum made this point, as far as I'm aware, long before anyone else.
-
Yes, it is weird to refer to him this way. ↩︎
-
Weizenbaum, Joseph. Computer Power and Human Reason. W. H. Freeman and Company, 1976, pp. 107-109. ↩︎
-
On that subject, Weizenbaum says:
↩︎[M]any professional programmers believe that their craft is difficult because the languages with which they must deal have rigid syntactical rules. There is > therefore a persistent cry for natural-language, e.g., English, programming systems. Programmers who hold to this believe have probably never tackled a truly difficult problem, and have therefore never felt the need for really deep criticism from the computer.[4]
-
Ibid., 109. ↩︎