I believe that this drama has implications for computing. 11.Our methodso时 mming will have een Wown open by ideas relaled to genomes Genetic programs and computer programs are strangely analogous.Both are abso lutely precise digital codes and no other codes that we know of have anything like the complexity of these two,with the size of a genome being of roughly the same or der of ma nitude(3×1omc otides for Homo sopiens)as the s size of an operating system 98) As a ge ation of engineers gre ws up with geno ear 8 m t dy w at hi s lack (no otable that too bigto stood in detail by rified and inded,the p rial softw design already dose to evolution by na rated hy an unonding n and test code and oorrect a process in whidh individual human intelligences seem less important than thev used to Software systems ovolve from one goneration to the next and they are never perfect,but they work.The prooess is repugnant to some computer scientists,but it is scalable and unstoppable. Finally,a predction that is not really a prediction,just a pious wish. 12.If we start thinking nou maybe we can cok up a good name forour field! 帝米 Table 1 lists e of the the omputing Its When I looked at this of predictions,I was startled to see that a them eme ght call r those marked by asterisk气，suggest a trend: Human beings will be remoued from the loop. I find I have envisioned an unsettling future,afuture in which humans,though still the taskmasters of computers.are no longer much involved in the details of getting the tasks done.Fifty vears from now.it is hard to imagine that our machines will still be dim enough to benefit much from our assistance.Sketch your needs to the machine,and then-well,you might as well go have a cup of cffee. That's my report from 2000,down here on the exponential.I believe that this drama has implications for computing. 11. Our methods of programming wil l have been blown open by ideas related to genomes and natural selection. Genetic programs and computer programs are strangely analogous. Both are abso￾lutely precise digital codes, and no other codes that we know of have anything like the complexity of these two, with the size of a genome being of roughly the same order of mag￾nitude (3109 nucleotides for Homo sapiens ) as the size of an operating system (2109 bits for Windows 98). As a generation of engineers grows up with genomics, thinking digitally about the evolution of life on earth, our methods of computer programming will change. (Some ideas in this direction are already with us.) Traditionally, computer programs are written in a dierent way from biological ones. There's a programmer in the loop, an intelligence, which gives computer programs a logical structure that bi￾ological programs lack (not to mention comments!). Yet it is notable that nowadays, large-scale software systems are too big to be understood in detail by any individual, let alone mechanically analysed or veried, and indeed, the process of industrial software design already seems as close to evolution by natural selection as to mathematical logic. Software at a place like Microsoft is generated by an unending process of experiment and test, code and correct, a process in which individual human intelligences seem less important than they used to. Software systems evolve from one generation to the next, and they are never perfect, but they work. The process is repugnant to some computer scientists, but it is scalable and unstoppable. Finally, a prediction that is not really a prediction, just a pious wish. 12. If we start thinking now, maybe we can cook up a good name for our eld! * * * Table 1 lists some highlights from the history of scientic computing. Its attempt to extrapolate to the future summarises some of the thoughts I have expressed in this essay. When I looked at this collection of predictions, I was startled to see that a theme emerges from them. Some are what one might call purely technical. The others, however, those marked by asterisks, suggest a trend: Human beings wil l be removed from the loop. () I nd I have envisioned an unsettling future, a future in which humans, though still the taskmasters of computers, are no longer much involved in the details of getting the tasks done. Fifty years from now, it is hard to imagine that our machines will still be dim enough to benet much from our assistance. Sketch your needs to the machine, and then|well, you might as well go have a cup of coee. That's my report from 2000, down here on the exponential. 7