4 ms·

But there are so, so many things abstracted away from our need to understand them. People a 120 years ago had to memorize trig tables. People 60 years ago had

But there are so, so many things abstracted away from our need to understand them. People a 120 years ago had to memorize trig tables. People 60 years ago had to learn how to operate a slide rule and understand how to handle accuracy. People 30 years ago had to learn how to do algebra and calculus. People 10 years ago needed to know how to set up the equations to ask Wolfram Alpha to solve the problem. Today, we're closing in on being able to say, "Draw up plans to build a mixed-use building on this plot with at least 20,000 square feet of retail and 60 residential units." And getting back an answer.

justinclift 4y ago
> ... an answer. Heh Heh Heh People -20 years ago need to learn algebra, calculus, slide rules, accuracy, and trig tables as the answers they're getting don't work and they're not sure what to do.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  I suppose that might be true if something catastrophic happens, but hopefully that's unlikely. We'll see...
ted_dunning 4y ago
Your postulates are wrong * Nobody ever had to memorize trig tables (unless you mean the values for 30, 45 and 60 degrees) * Understanding accuracy is not associated with just slide rules. It is ubiquitous whenever you make measurements. Moreso if you calculate with these measured values. * People have been learning algebra and calculus for hundreds of years. They still are doing so. * Symbolic math programs like maxima, maple, wolfram alpha, sage and others only solve some problems, but they have been used for 40 years or more for particular situations. Given this, forgive me if I think your conclusion is flawed. You can ask a LLM model that answer today. And you will get an answer. Understanding what that answer means and how it is a form of hooey still requires domain knowledge. And it will for a very long time.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  Trig tables: I remember reading that, but I can't find a cite and I'm happy to concede the point here, but having to have a book (you do acknowledge that such tables were a thing?) that you physically look things up in is hardly better. Accuracy: first, I can't believe I cross-wired accuracy and precision. Still, you seem to be responding as if I had gotten it right, so I'll respond in kind: sure, understanding precision is still an important concept, but it was much more so when working with a mechanical device that managed at most 2-4 digits of precision. I'm guessing that with 64-bit values, precision isn't a big topic of conversation outside of NASA. (That's hyperbole) You're saying that algebra and calculus are just as tedious/necessary now as they were 30 years ago? To be clear, I'm sort of fudging -- Mathematica is actually 34 years old. But my point is that tools like it have changed who needs to learn the techniques, and what learning the techniques look like. And of course it's easier to be certain that basically no one today needs to know how to use a slide rule than to say no one needs to be able to solve a quadratic -- the more recent the change, the less absolute it will be. Finally, "a very long time" seems optimistic. As an analogy, there were articles written in 2010 saying that it would be "a very long time" before computers beat anyone reasonably skilled at Go. It was less than ten years later that the very best humans couldn't beat computers. It's impossible to know where fast progress will be made vs. slow. I purposefully chose a hyperbolic example to illustrate the point, and it's entirely possible that architecture won't be a field handled well by AI/ML in ten years. But I think it's certain that over the next several years, multiple fields that humans regard as being as complex and domain-knowledge-dependent as architecture will be automated.
remarkEon 4y ago
Not everyone thinks abstracting away all that stuff was a good idea.
- gcanyon 4y ago
  I get that, but I disagree pretty strongly. We are far past the point where a single human can learn and understand everything from first principles. It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens (people still show up for the TV show Survivor not knowing how to make fire!?) but I, for one, like the fact that my car doesn't have a manual spark advance.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I don't think we're talking about a human learning/understanding everything from first principles, but I agree with you that our collective distance from understanding even the basic structures of what makes these things work is getting way too large. I'm probably jaded because I'm a millennial, so I grew up during the transition from analog to digital and understand both worlds. When I encounter or work with young people today they are actually much closer to geriatrics than to my generation in that, to many of them, so much of the technology they rely on is indistinguishable from magic. I think this is bad. >It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain to survive one of these. Mostly, we're just lazy and don't do it because we think our computers will do it for us.
    - gcanyon 4y ago
      > People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain There are whole shelves of books on how to grow food, and other shelves on how to build shelter. I haven't watched a lot of Survivor or Naked and Afraid, but what I have seen makes me think there's more to survival than can be learned in a few months, let's say. And that's just basic survival. If we want to retain even an 18th century standard of living, we'd need to understand how to build steam engines, a cotton gin, etc., etc. I don't like our odds. To be clear: some people would survive. But my half-assed guess would be that the human population might drop to less than a million.
gcanyon 4y ago
Arrgh, I meant precision, not accuracy. I feel ashamed for the confusion.

justinclift 4y ago

> ... an answer. Heh Heh Heh People -20 years ago need to learn algebra, calculus, slide rules, accuracy, and trig tables as the answers they're getting don't work and they're not sure what to do.

gcanyon 4y ago
I suppose that might be true if something catastrophic happens, but hopefully that's unlikely. We'll see...

ted_dunning 4y ago

Your postulates are wrong * Nobody ever had to memorize trig tables (unless you mean the values for 30, 45 and 60 degrees) * Understanding accuracy is not associated with just slide rules. It is ubiquitous whenever you make measurements. Moreso if you calculate with these measured values. * People have been learning algebra and calculus for hundreds of years. They still are doing so. * Symbolic math programs like maxima, maple, wolfram alpha, sage and others only solve some problems, but they have been used for 40 years or more for particular situations. Given this, forgive me if I think your conclusion is flawed. You can ask a LLM model that answer today. And you will get an answer. Understanding what that answer means and how it is a form of hooey still requires domain knowledge. And it will for a very long time.

gcanyon 4y ago
Trig tables: I remember reading that, but I can't find a cite and I'm happy to concede the point here, but having to have a book (you do acknowledge that such tables were a thing?) that you physically look things up in is hardly better. Accuracy: first, I can't believe I cross-wired accuracy and precision. Still, you seem to be responding as if I had gotten it right, so I'll respond in kind: sure, understanding precision is still an important concept, but it was much more so when working with a mechanical device that managed at most 2-4 digits of precision. I'm guessing that with 64-bit values, precision isn't a big topic of conversation outside of NASA. (That's hyperbole) You're saying that algebra and calculus are just as tedious/necessary now as they were 30 years ago? To be clear, I'm sort of fudging -- Mathematica is actually 34 years old. But my point is that tools like it have changed who needs to learn the techniques, and what learning the techniques look like. And of course it's easier to be certain that basically no one today needs to know how to use a slide rule than to say no one needs to be able to solve a quadratic -- the more recent the change, the less absolute it will be. Finally, "a very long time" seems optimistic. As an analogy, there were articles written in 2010 saying that it would be "a very long time" before computers beat anyone reasonably skilled at Go. It was less than ten years later that the very best humans couldn't beat computers. It's impossible to know where fast progress will be made vs. slow. I purposefully chose a hyperbolic example to illustrate the point, and it's entirely possible that architecture won't be a field handled well by AI/ML in ten years. But I think it's certain that over the next several years, multiple fields that humans regard as being as complex and domain-knowledge-dependent as architecture will be automated.

remarkEon 4y ago

Not everyone thinks abstracting away all that stuff was a good idea.

gcanyon 4y ago
I get that, but I disagree pretty strongly. We are far past the point where a single human can learn and understand everything from first principles. It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens (people still show up for the TV show Survivor not knowing how to make fire!?) but I, for one, like the fact that my car doesn't have a manual spark advance.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  I don't think we're talking about a human learning/understanding everything from first principles, but I agree with you that our collective distance from understanding even the basic structures of what makes these things work is getting way too large. I'm probably jaded because I'm a millennial, so I grew up during the transition from analog to digital and understand both worlds. When I encounter or work with young people today they are actually much closer to geriatrics than to my generation in that, to many of them, so much of the technology they rely on is indistinguishable from magic. I think this is bad. >It means that many of us would be in for a very difficult time if the zombie apocalypse happens People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain to survive one of these. Mostly, we're just lazy and don't do it because we think our computers will do it for us.
  - gcanyon 4y ago
    > People grossly overestimate the amount of knowledge you'd need to learn and retain There are whole shelves of books on how to grow food, and other shelves on how to build shelter. I haven't watched a lot of Survivor or Naked and Afraid, but what I have seen makes me think there's more to survival than can be learned in a few months, let's say. And that's just basic survival. If we want to retain even an 18th century standard of living, we'd need to understand how to build steam engines, a cotton gin, etc., etc. I don't like our odds. To be clear: some people would survive. But my half-assed guess would be that the human population might drop to less than a million.

gcanyon 4y ago

Arrgh, I meant precision, not accuracy. I feel ashamed for the confusion.