3 ms·

> The qualitative shift of computational man finds that what he has read can be made into action, simply by it having been written, yet this does not hold true

> The qualitative shift of computational man finds that what he has read can be made into action, simply by it having been written, yet this does not hold true for a person who is handed Durants history of the world, or Livy’s history of Rome (before having been taught Latin, even!) and being told, you have knowledge, even though you can’t get through it all. I think you have much too high a regard for your own interests and craft. I can guarantee you a cabinetmaker, machinist, pilot, doctor, or lawyer can make any and more of the same style of arguments. A little bit of computational knowledge? Yes it's very useful, and that's what low-code tools like Excel/spreadsheets are for. Akin to learning the basics of reading. More than that? No I think you overestimate the usefulness of computing, and most people only have a working knowledge of reading and writing. The world is full of complexity everywhere. Computing isn't the only thing with this force multiplier effect for humanity.

Gollapalli 5y ago
Perhaps. But I still think that computation is fundamentally different from everything that’s come before. I’m allowed to be idealistic about some things. Aren’t we all?
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  It is surely different in the sense that it has the complexity of higher order. Every software in addition to the complexity of the implementation also reflects the complexity of the domain: if one person cannot grasp the full picture of the domain, the same person cannot be expected to understand the software for it. We are beyond the point when for many domains a single human being could understand them in their entirety. 20 years ago I could say I understand and can replicate the technology behind a personal computer from silicon to OS internals to GUI application on a CRT screen (I studied electronics and computer science). Today even a specialist in one of the layers will need a lot of time to understand an unfamiliar product. If we cannot do it, we should focus not on how we can get access to the code but on how we can entrust the audit and repair responsibility to someone else who is a specialist. And that’s a different story.

Gollapalli 5y ago

Perhaps. But I still think that computation is fundamentally different from everything that’s come before. I’m allowed to be idealistic about some things. Aren’t we all?

ivan_gammel 5y ago
It is surely different in the sense that it has the complexity of higher order. Every software in addition to the complexity of the implementation also reflects the complexity of the domain: if one person cannot grasp the full picture of the domain, the same person cannot be expected to understand the software for it. We are beyond the point when for many domains a single human being could understand them in their entirety. 20 years ago I could say I understand and can replicate the technology behind a personal computer from silicon to OS internals to GUI application on a CRT screen (I studied electronics and computer science). Today even a specialist in one of the layers will need a lot of time to understand an unfamiliar product. If we cannot do it, we should focus not on how we can get access to the code but on how we can entrust the audit and repair responsibility to someone else who is a specialist. And that’s a different story.