4 ms·

Software is causing science is moving backward. Software makes the world more complex faster than we can understand it, so even though we have more knowledge w

Software is causing science is moving backward. Software makes the world more complex faster than we can understand it, so even though we have more knowledge we understand less about the world. We used to know how cars work. We used to know how phones work. Now we don't, and never will again. The implications are unsettling.

titzer 9y ago
+1000 to this. Imagine a world populated entirely by IOT devices. Imagine, for a moment, starting with a blank slate and trying to make sense of these devices using the methods of Science. They are so complex and their behavior governed by so much software that it'd be impossible to make a local model of how the device actually worked. You simply would not be able to predict when the damn thing would even blink its lights. When the world gets to this point...One would have to understand how software worked, in many different programming languages; kernels, scripts, databases, IO, compilers, instruction sets, microarchitecture, circuits, transistors, then firmware, storage...it'd be impossible to reverse engineer.
- adrianN 9y ago
  It would still be simpler than figuring out how biological machines work but biologist are trying with some success.
  - titzer 9y ago
    My point is that it is completely stupid to think of the stack of knowledge necessary to understand how an IOT device really, fundamentally works. A toaster is not a complex thing. It has a few springs, a tray, a body, some heating elements. Some wires. There is absolutely no need to put the internet in there. /rant
    - daemin 9y ago
      The best example of how uncomplicated things should be is the design of an ordinary kettle. I remember an article here on HN where a guy disassembled a kettle to find out how they make it so cheaply. It was some simple bi-metal wire that would bend when it reached a certain temperature and shut off the power to the heating coil. I guess the whole aspect of these IoT is that it violates the simplicity of these devices. Kind of like the weapons in Judge Dredd vs a simple modern mechanical handgun.
    - alexlarsson 9y ago
      You think a toaster is simple? Try building one from scratch! This guy did: http://www.thetoasterproject.org http://www.thetoasterproject.org and it was HARD!
      - titzer 9y ago
        Well, smelting your own iron and making plastic are the hard part. There is nothing particularly challenging if you have a few pieces of metal laying around.
        alexlarsson 9y ago
        Sure, it all depends on how you define a "blank slate". The whole world of engineering is a huge stack, and near the bottom are things like smelting iron and making plastic, up a few layers you have things like standardized screws, near the top you have things like kernels, databases, etc. If all these things can be taken as a given, why would you not want to use them? I mean, yes, you can avoid some complexity by making a simple toaster, but the second the consumer wants things like "never burn my toast" or "personalized toast levels" you need to go up the stack. That said, some IOT things are clearly lame ideas that should never have been made in the first place, but that doesn't mean you should avoid using existing technology.
        titzer 9y ago
        > If all these things can be taken as a given, why would you not want to use them? When the device breaks, what do we do with it? If it is mostly software, it is not user serviceable, whereas something with a spring and clips and wires is something that a curious person armed with a screwdriver could disassemble and fix. I fear that software is ushering in an age where users are absolutely helpless when something breaks. Then we get big stupid bricks with chips in them.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        The complexity can be worth it. Take electronic fuel injection. Uses less fuel, has a better power band, has a wider range of self correction.
  - donatj 9y ago
    I disagree. Biological machines at least are all coded in the same language with the same basic runtime and intended output. They're all similar machines doing similar things via similar means.
    - adrianN 9y ago
      I encourage you to pick up a biochemistry textbook.
  - taneq 9y ago
    That level of success is on par with figuring out that IoT devices run on electricity and use some kind of radio waves to communicate. Maybe that they store binary data somehow.
  - jerf 9y ago
    Neurologists with EE backgrounds apply neurology techniques to understanding the 6502 CPU: https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21714978-cautionary-tale-about-promises-modern-brain-science-tests-suggest https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217149... It goes poorly. The economist article links to the original paper, which is quite readable too.
- daemin 9y ago
  I guess this is where future generations can get magic from. Someone figures out some small part of the protocol and they basically become a mage by sheer virtue of their limited understanding. I mean how many times has someone called you a Wizard when you've fixed some random piece of tech or gotten something working for them?
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Coil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Coil
- pjc50 9y ago
  Someone said that being surrounded by bad or malicious IoT devices would be indistinguishable from being haunted.
taneq 9y ago
Many times I've had to explain to electricians that you can't "figure out" what's happening inside a PLC or other programmable device without having a copy of the program. It doesn't matter whether turning on input A turns off output B the first time you try it, or the fifth, or the hundredth. Maybe it also depends on the time of day, or some data coming over the network, or maybe there's a counter that turns output B on permanently after 100 rising edges on A. You just. Don't. Know. "Yeah nah but when you turn on input A, input B turns off so we know how B works."
leejo 9y ago
> We used to know how cars work. We used to know how phones work. Now we don't, and never will again. Philip K. Dick wrote a short story on this, some 60 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_the_Printer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_the_Printer

titzer 9y ago

+1000 to this. Imagine a world populated entirely by IOT devices. Imagine, for a moment, starting with a blank slate and trying to make sense of these devices using the methods of Science. They are so complex and their behavior governed by so much software that it'd be impossible to make a local model of how the device actually worked. You simply would not be able to predict when the damn thing would even blink its lights. When the world gets to this point...One would have to understand how software worked, in many different programming languages; kernels, scripts, databases, IO, compilers, instruction sets, microarchitecture, circuits, transistors, then firmware, storage...it'd be impossible to reverse engineer.

adrianN 9y ago
It would still be simpler than figuring out how biological machines work but biologist are trying with some success.
- titzer 9y ago
  My point is that it is completely stupid to think of the stack of knowledge necessary to understand how an IOT device really, fundamentally works. A toaster is not a complex thing. It has a few springs, a tray, a body, some heating elements. Some wires. There is absolutely no need to put the internet in there. /rant
  - daemin 9y ago
    The best example of how uncomplicated things should be is the design of an ordinary kettle. I remember an article here on HN where a guy disassembled a kettle to find out how they make it so cheaply. It was some simple bi-metal wire that would bend when it reached a certain temperature and shut off the power to the heating coil. I guess the whole aspect of these IoT is that it violates the simplicity of these devices. Kind of like the weapons in Judge Dredd vs a simple modern mechanical handgun.
  - alexlarsson 9y ago
    You think a toaster is simple? Try building one from scratch! This guy did: http://www.thetoasterproject.org http://www.thetoasterproject.org and it was HARD!
    - titzer 9y ago
      Well, smelting your own iron and making plastic are the hard part. There is nothing particularly challenging if you have a few pieces of metal laying around.
      - alexlarsson 9y ago
        Sure, it all depends on how you define a "blank slate". The whole world of engineering is a huge stack, and near the bottom are things like smelting iron and making plastic, up a few layers you have things like standardized screws, near the top you have things like kernels, databases, etc. If all these things can be taken as a given, why would you not want to use them? I mean, yes, you can avoid some complexity by making a simple toaster, but the second the consumer wants things like "never burn my toast" or "personalized toast levels" you need to go up the stack. That said, some IOT things are clearly lame ideas that should never have been made in the first place, but that doesn't mean you should avoid using existing technology.
        titzer 9y ago
        > If all these things can be taken as a given, why would you not want to use them? When the device breaks, what do we do with it? If it is mostly software, it is not user serviceable, whereas something with a spring and clips and wires is something that a curious person armed with a screwdriver could disassemble and fix. I fear that software is ushering in an age where users are absolutely helpless when something breaks. Then we get big stupid bricks with chips in them.
        maxerickson 9y ago
        The complexity can be worth it. Take electronic fuel injection. Uses less fuel, has a better power band, has a wider range of self correction.
- donatj 9y ago
  I disagree. Biological machines at least are all coded in the same language with the same basic runtime and intended output. They're all similar machines doing similar things via similar means.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    I encourage you to pick up a biochemistry textbook.
- taneq 9y ago
  That level of success is on par with figuring out that IoT devices run on electricity and use some kind of radio waves to communicate. Maybe that they store binary data somehow.
- jerf 9y ago
  Neurologists with EE backgrounds apply neurology techniques to understanding the 6502 CPU: https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21714978-cautionary-tale-about-promises-modern-brain-science-tests-suggest https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/217149... It goes poorly. The economist article links to the original paper, which is quite readable too.
daemin 9y ago
I guess this is where future generations can get magic from. Someone figures out some small part of the protocol and they basically become a mage by sheer virtue of their limited understanding. I mean how many times has someone called you a Wizard when you've fixed some random piece of tech or gotten something working for them?
- digi_owl 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Coil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denn%C5%8D_Coil
pjc50 9y ago
Someone said that being surrounded by bad or malicious IoT devices would be indistinguishable from being haunted.

taneq 9y ago

Many times I've had to explain to electricians that you can't "figure out" what's happening inside a PLC or other programmable device without having a copy of the program. It doesn't matter whether turning on input A turns off output B the first time you try it, or the fifth, or the hundredth. Maybe it also depends on the time of day, or some data coming over the network, or maybe there's a counter that turns output B on permanently after 100 rising edges on A. You just. Don't. Know. "Yeah nah but when you turn on input A, input B turns off so we know how B works."

leejo 9y ago

> We used to know how cars work. We used to know how phones work. Now we don't, and never will again. Philip K. Dick wrote a short story on this, some 60 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_the_Printer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_for_the_Printer