5 ms·

Username checks out because you missed the point. Yes, I know calculators can encourage people to not think; I should know because I wrote one. [1] But the cu

Username checks out because you missed the point. Yes, I know calculators can encourage people to not think; I should know because I wrote one. [1] But the current "AI" tech is so much worse on that front. It's a difference of degree, and that degree does matter. By the way, when I was learning to fly helicopters [2], I used my calculator to calculate weight and balances, but I also did it by hand! [1]: https://git.gavinhoward.com/gavin/bc https://git.gavinhoward.com/gavin/bc [2]: https://gavinhoward.com/2022/09/grounded-for-life-losing-the-dream-of-flight/ https://gavinhoward.com/2022/09/grounded-for-life-losing-the...

throwaway5371 4y ago
thats a weird flex
fnovd 4y ago
I'm sure that all was very rewarding for you. I'm not sure how it translates into a business. We don't want to teach accountants to deploy their own calculator from the command line and we don't want pilots to do math while they're flying. You act like encouraging people not to think is a problem. Thing is, you'd be wrong. We want people not just to think, but to focus. If I'm a pilot and I have to worry about the runtime environment of the command-line calculator I use to hand-calculate my route and cockpit configuration, is that a good use of my focus? I think most people would say no. We definitely want to discourage the pilot from actively thinking about that kind of stuff. Should they have a grasp of the basics in case of emergency? Sure. Do we have a sustainable and efficient system of transportation if that's how our pilots spend their time? No.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  It is the ability to do the calculations that matters, not that you would do so in actual practice. He very explicitly mentioned 'while I was learning'.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  You don't know much about aviation, do you? Aviation is about redundancy. Redundancy is a good use of a pilot's focus. That's why I did both. I didn't blindly trust my calculator to not have bugs (even though I wrote it!), and I didn't blindly trust my hand calculations to be correct. If they agree, though, it's a good sign that everything is in good order. That's what redundancy is for, to ensure that a problem in one thing does not lead to another problem, like in the Swiss cheese model of accidents.
  - fnovd 4y ago
    Redundancy is not a good use of focus for most people (except SREs and the like). The whole point of redundancy is to remove something from focus. I'm guessing you checked everything by hand for the sole purpose of not having to focus on these calculations mid-flight. I'm sure most commercial pilots rely on a larger organization to make these checks for them and their organization probably employs its own system of checks and redundancies at scale. Putting that all on the pilot is not going to give you a sustainable transportation business. If you're just trying to get off Gilligan's island, that's another thing entirely.
    - gavinhoward 4y ago
      The final authority, and final liability, for the airplane is on the head of the pilots. A commercial pilot friend has told me that they still check the calculations. When they don't, they get accidents like the Gimli Glider. It's like saying that putting all of the legal checks on the lawyers is not going to give you a sustainable business. But we all know that's wrong.
      - fnovd 4y ago
        What was the outcome of that incident? Fault was found with the Air Canada procedures, training, and manuals, while the Captain and First Officer went on to receive FAI Diplomas for Outstanding Airmanship. What did not happen was mass calls for the individual pilots to write their own calculation software. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, as reading about the incident you mentioned only paints a clearer picture that systematic redundancy is the responsibility of the creating and maintaining the system, not of those using it.
Closi 4y ago
I think you missed their point - calculators don't exist in accountancy firms to 'encourage accountants not to think', they exist because they dramatically speed up accountancy and make accountants more productive. Sure you can open an accountancy business and refuse to use calculators, but that's just working with a strange self-imposed limit rather than using technology to best support your business.
- gavinhoward 4y ago
  And you missed my point. Yes, calculators do that. I'm arguing that "AI" does not let programmers write better code faster. It lets them write worse code faster, or better code slower.
  - fnovd 4y ago
    I'm sure people said the same thing about compilers. And then interpreters. Even today people complain about interpreted languages being too slow and not requiring people to understand "enough" of what's actually happening. Turns out that really doesn't matter. I think your argument is incredibly weak; the fact that some people don't use these tools effectively doesn't mean that nobody can. Whoever figures this stuff out is going to win, that's just how it works. That is to say, there will always be a niche for people who refuse to move up the chain of abstraction: they're actually incredibly necessary. However, as low-level foundations improve, the possibilities enabled higher up the chain grow at an exponentially-higher rate, and so that's where most of the work is needed. Career-wise it might be better to avoid AI if that's what you want to do, but as a business I can't see a dogmatic stance against these tools being anything but an own goal.
    - gavinhoward 4y ago
      > Turns out that really doesn't matter. Except that it does! For every level of abstraction, you lose something, and abstractions are leaky. The lower levels of abstraction make you lose the least, and they are also the least leaky. The higher you go, the more you lose, and the more leaky. What I'm claiming is that these "AI" tools have definitely reached the point where the losses and the leaks are too large to justify. And I'm betting my career on that.

throwaway5371 4y ago

thats a weird flex

fnovd 4y ago

I'm sure that all was very rewarding for you. I'm not sure how it translates into a business. We don't want to teach accountants to deploy their own calculator from the command line and we don't want pilots to do math while they're flying. You act like encouraging people not to think is a problem. Thing is, you'd be wrong. We want people not just to think, but to focus. If I'm a pilot and I have to worry about the runtime environment of the command-line calculator I use to hand-calculate my route and cockpit configuration, is that a good use of my focus? I think most people would say no. We definitely want to discourage the pilot from actively thinking about that kind of stuff. Should they have a grasp of the basics in case of emergency? Sure. Do we have a sustainable and efficient system of transportation if that's how our pilots spend their time? No.

jacquesm 4y ago
It is the ability to do the calculations that matters, not that you would do so in actual practice. He very explicitly mentioned 'while I was learning'.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gavinhoward 4y ago
You don't know much about aviation, do you? Aviation is about redundancy. Redundancy is a good use of a pilot's focus. That's why I did both. I didn't blindly trust my calculator to not have bugs (even though I wrote it!), and I didn't blindly trust my hand calculations to be correct. If they agree, though, it's a good sign that everything is in good order. That's what redundancy is for, to ensure that a problem in one thing does not lead to another problem, like in the Swiss cheese model of accidents.
- fnovd 4y ago
  Redundancy is not a good use of focus for most people (except SREs and the like). The whole point of redundancy is to remove something from focus. I'm guessing you checked everything by hand for the sole purpose of not having to focus on these calculations mid-flight. I'm sure most commercial pilots rely on a larger organization to make these checks for them and their organization probably employs its own system of checks and redundancies at scale. Putting that all on the pilot is not going to give you a sustainable transportation business. If you're just trying to get off Gilligan's island, that's another thing entirely.
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    The final authority, and final liability, for the airplane is on the head of the pilots. A commercial pilot friend has told me that they still check the calculations. When they don't, they get accidents like the Gimli Glider. It's like saying that putting all of the legal checks on the lawyers is not going to give you a sustainable business. But we all know that's wrong.
    - fnovd 4y ago
      What was the outcome of that incident? Fault was found with the Air Canada procedures, training, and manuals, while the Captain and First Officer went on to receive FAI Diplomas for Outstanding Airmanship. What did not happen was mass calls for the individual pilots to write their own calculation software. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, as reading about the incident you mentioned only paints a clearer picture that systematic redundancy is the responsibility of the creating and maintaining the system, not of those using it.

Closi 4y ago

I think you missed their point - calculators don't exist in accountancy firms to 'encourage accountants not to think', they exist because they dramatically speed up accountancy and make accountants more productive. Sure you can open an accountancy business and refuse to use calculators, but that's just working with a strange self-imposed limit rather than using technology to best support your business.

gavinhoward 4y ago
And you missed my point. Yes, calculators do that. I'm arguing that "AI" does not let programmers write better code faster. It lets them write worse code faster, or better code slower.
- fnovd 4y ago
  I'm sure people said the same thing about compilers. And then interpreters. Even today people complain about interpreted languages being too slow and not requiring people to understand "enough" of what's actually happening. Turns out that really doesn't matter. I think your argument is incredibly weak; the fact that some people don't use these tools effectively doesn't mean that nobody can. Whoever figures this stuff out is going to win, that's just how it works. That is to say, there will always be a niche for people who refuse to move up the chain of abstraction: they're actually incredibly necessary. However, as low-level foundations improve, the possibilities enabled higher up the chain grow at an exponentially-higher rate, and so that's where most of the work is needed. Career-wise it might be better to avoid AI if that's what you want to do, but as a business I can't see a dogmatic stance against these tools being anything but an own goal.
  - gavinhoward 4y ago
    > Turns out that really doesn't matter. Except that it does! For every level of abstraction, you lose something, and abstractions are leaky. The lower levels of abstraction make you lose the least, and they are also the least leaky. The higher you go, the more you lose, and the more leaky. What I'm claiming is that these "AI" tools have definitely reached the point where the losses and the leaks are too large to justify. And I'm betting my career on that.