11 ms·

> When computers design things, they look very different. Yes, because the computer assumes they're not going to change. The "tensile structure" looks cool no

by ken 7y ago

> When computers design things, they look very different. Yes, because the computer assumes they're not going to change. The "tensile structure" looks cool now, but throw it in the back of a truck for 3 months and see if it's still algorithmically perfect. Parts get beat up. Tabs get bent a little. Maybe we'll want to grind off one of those tabs that we're not using because it's in the way, or weld on a new one. With the old structure, I can see which parts are relevant to maintaining the integrity of the system. It looks like an un-optimized binary, which is very close to its source code. That's a feature. I can reason about the parts on their own. The "topologically optimized" one is like an optimized binary. It's great for saving a few grams as long as you never have to change anything. The downside is that it's impossible to reason about. If one tab gets a little bent, that may be harmless, or it may cause the entire structure to lose its strength. You don't know. Similarly, the truss on the catwalk over the crazy-looking Wendelstein 7-X is made of nice even rectangles and right triangles, and I guarantee that's not because it's a topologically optimal shape for this truss.

madengr 7y ago
In our tour at work, they show off a 3D printed, computer optimized part. It looks very similar to that tensile structure; ver organic looking. The customer didn’t like the look, and they had to fill in some areas to make it look less alien.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >The customer didn’t like the look, and they had to fill in some areas to make it look less alien Instead, they should have sold it as more organic and advanced to the customer, and explained why it is so, like the article did... That would gain them even more respect from the customer, whereas now they merely caved in and looked incompetent of getting it right at first (since the customer nows thinks it's his complains that made them finally do it properly).
  - wlesieutre 7y ago
    You're assuming they didn't
    - coldtea 7y ago
      From the end result described either they didn't try or they weren't successful in doing it. If they did there wouldn't be any changes made to appease the customer.
      - wlesieutre 7y ago
        The fact that the customer was buying 3d printed computer optimized parts in the first place probably indicates that "more advanced" was explained to them. There are any number of reasons they might not have liked it. Maybe it looked odd because it didn't match the rest of the design. Maybe they were worried about their own customer (of the end product that the part goes into) thinking it didn't look sturdy enough. If you're designing parts for a rocket then by all means worry about every ounce of weight, but for most stuff if the customer wants it to look less weird you can just make it look less weird. And then charge them for the extra material.
- klyrs 7y ago
  Once, I found a curious challenge in optimizing a bitwise formula for a particular computation (by hand it took hours; brute-force, a program found the essentially-unique optimal solution in a fraction of a second). I showed it to a fellow mathematician... he was mad because he couldn't determine rhyme or reason in the solution I found. Wicked smart guy, outclasses me as a mathematician by far... but he essentially rejected my result because he couldn't ascertain how to reproduce it by hand (despite me having a relatively simple proof of optimality).
TeMPOraL 7y ago
There are ways to make such "organic" structures more resillient. Life is one huge proof of that. One of the reason biologists and medical researchers have so much trouble figuring how anything works in living organisms is because in biology, there are very few clear boundaries; every process is mixed up with a lot of other ones. And yet the final result is incredibly resilient.
- geitir 7y ago
  Through a process where things that are suboptimal die and change happens over tens of thousands of years
- sean2 7y ago
  Sure, but there's some downsides to that. If a part in my car fails, the mechanic pulls it out and bolts in a new one without much consideration for the rest of the system. If a part of my body fails, there's a slim chance I might be able to get a replacement from another person, and I'll have to be on immuno-supressents for life, and very expensive people will be needed to perform the installation, and things often go wrong even so. The house I'm living in has been around 30+ years, but in the last 5 years, I've witnessed several trees in the yard die. I guess what I'm saying, is there is a trade off between easy to understand and fix (orderly) and resiliency(biological), and even then I see a lot of orderly things outlast the chaotic systems.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    A good point, and cars are a perfect example. Older cars tend to be less efficient than new ones, but there was a point in time not too long ago when you could repair anything in your car with a welder, some elbow grease, and a free afternoon. New cars of today tend to require expensive somewhat expensive specialists to fix, and I've been hearing that the future is in cars that refuse to start unless the ECU can cryptographically verify that each and every part is authentic - that's like an immune system of sorts, except one that isn't protecting your car, but the manufacturer's ability to take your money. Unfortunately, it seems that more and more complex products are heading this way.
d0mine 7y ago
I see it more like a rigid grid architecture vs. organically build/evolved structures like in the book "A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction" by Christopher Alexander et al. Here's some pictures https://medium.com/design-matters-4/a-new-approach-to-designing-smart-cities-b33443a4d968 https://medium.com/design-matters-4/a-new-approach-to-design...
xondono 7y ago
The other point I find missing is that this kind algorithmic optimization tends to miss solutions that are quite obvious to "system designers" due to local maxima (evolutionary roadblocks). For instance, nature has not figure out how to evolve wheels even in flat regions.
- anon73044 7y ago
  Counter point: the tumbleweed. Also, you're assuming that wheels are the most efficient design for traveling, but bullions of dandelions seem to spread their seeds every year along with dozens of other plants.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Nature favors balls over wheels, because wheels are much harder to stabilize.

by ken 7y ago

madengr 7y ago

In our tour at work, they show off a 3D printed, computer optimized part. It looks very similar to that tensile structure; ver organic looking. The customer didn’t like the look, and they had to fill in some areas to make it look less alien.

coldtea 7y ago
>The customer didn’t like the look, and they had to fill in some areas to make it look less alien Instead, they should have sold it as more organic and advanced to the customer, and explained why it is so, like the article did... That would gain them even more respect from the customer, whereas now they merely caved in and looked incompetent of getting it right at first (since the customer nows thinks it's his complains that made them finally do it properly).
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  You're assuming they didn't
  - coldtea 7y ago
    From the end result described either they didn't try or they weren't successful in doing it. If they did there wouldn't be any changes made to appease the customer.
    - wlesieutre 7y ago
      The fact that the customer was buying 3d printed computer optimized parts in the first place probably indicates that "more advanced" was explained to them. There are any number of reasons they might not have liked it. Maybe it looked odd because it didn't match the rest of the design. Maybe they were worried about their own customer (of the end product that the part goes into) thinking it didn't look sturdy enough. If you're designing parts for a rocket then by all means worry about every ounce of weight, but for most stuff if the customer wants it to look less weird you can just make it look less weird. And then charge them for the extra material.
klyrs 7y ago
Once, I found a curious challenge in optimizing a bitwise formula for a particular computation (by hand it took hours; brute-force, a program found the essentially-unique optimal solution in a fraction of a second). I showed it to a fellow mathematician... he was mad because he couldn't determine rhyme or reason in the solution I found. Wicked smart guy, outclasses me as a mathematician by far... but he essentially rejected my result because he couldn't ascertain how to reproduce it by hand (despite me having a relatively simple proof of optimality).

TeMPOraL 7y ago

There are ways to make such "organic" structures more resillient. Life is one huge proof of that. One of the reason biologists and medical researchers have so much trouble figuring how anything works in living organisms is because in biology, there are very few clear boundaries; every process is mixed up with a lot of other ones. And yet the final result is incredibly resilient.

geitir 7y ago
Through a process where things that are suboptimal die and change happens over tens of thousands of years
sean2 7y ago
Sure, but there's some downsides to that. If a part in my car fails, the mechanic pulls it out and bolts in a new one without much consideration for the rest of the system. If a part of my body fails, there's a slim chance I might be able to get a replacement from another person, and I'll have to be on immuno-supressents for life, and very expensive people will be needed to perform the installation, and things often go wrong even so. The house I'm living in has been around 30+ years, but in the last 5 years, I've witnessed several trees in the yard die. I guess what I'm saying, is there is a trade off between easy to understand and fix (orderly) and resiliency(biological), and even then I see a lot of orderly things outlast the chaotic systems.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  A good point, and cars are a perfect example. Older cars tend to be less efficient than new ones, but there was a point in time not too long ago when you could repair anything in your car with a welder, some elbow grease, and a free afternoon. New cars of today tend to require expensive somewhat expensive specialists to fix, and I've been hearing that the future is in cars that refuse to start unless the ECU can cryptographically verify that each and every part is authentic - that's like an immune system of sorts, except one that isn't protecting your car, but the manufacturer's ability to take your money. Unfortunately, it seems that more and more complex products are heading this way.

d0mine 7y ago

I see it more like a rigid grid architecture vs. organically build/evolved structures like in the book "A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction" by Christopher Alexander et al. Here's some pictures https://medium.com/design-matters-4/a-new-approach-to-designing-smart-cities-b33443a4d968 https://medium.com/design-matters-4/a-new-approach-to-design...

xondono 7y ago

The other point I find missing is that this kind algorithmic optimization tends to miss solutions that are quite obvious to "system designers" due to local maxima (evolutionary roadblocks). For instance, nature has not figure out how to evolve wheels even in flat regions.

anon73044 7y ago
Counter point: the tumbleweed. Also, you're assuming that wheels are the most efficient design for traveling, but bullions of dandelions seem to spread their seeds every year along with dozens of other plants.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Nature favors balls over wheels, because wheels are much harder to stabilize.