82,853
edits
Something for the weekend, sir?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
{{gigerenzer on basel quote}} | {{gigerenzer on basel quote}} | ||
These shortcomings in engineering and technology mean we cannot | These shortcomings in engineering and [[technology]] mean we cannot — ''yet'' — fully solve that problem. But we should prioritise the [[algorithm]], and deploy humans in its service. We still need humans to make sure the machine operates as best it can, but the further humans in the organisation get from that central executive function, and the better the algorithm gets, the more humans resemble a maintenance crew: their task is simply to ensure the orderly functioning of the plant. As technology advances, human agency can be progressively decommissioned. | ||
The modernist narrative focusses on what it can see, which is the | The modernist narrative focusses on [[Legibility|what it can see]], which is necessarily limited to the ''formal'' inputs and outputs of its own model. There are at least two consequences of this. Firstly, the modernist narrative cannot see ''informal'', but often vital, interactions between components of the system that its model does not consider material. These are the random acts of kindness, the jobs the staff do that are not in the service catalogue, that explain the difference between excellent performance and work-to-rule. | ||
Secondly, modernism is a ''[[negative sum game]]'': its baseline is immediate, costless performance of the program. Positive variance from this baseline ''is not possible'': the goal is to lose as little energy as possible. As with a Newtonian equation, real-world performance never meets theoretical conditions: friction and imperfection means an inevitable loss of energy and increase in [[entropy]]. | |||
In Newton’s theory, acceleration equals mass times force. In the practical world, acceleration is inevitably less than mass x force. We know that friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, observed A will never be quite amount to M*F. Engineering and environmental control move real A closer to theoretical A, but it is practically impossible for real A to equal theoretical A, and ''theoretically'' impossible to exceed it. Engineering is there for a negative sum game: no amount of engineering, efficiency or insight can on yield an acceleration equal to or greater than M*A. | In Newton’s theory, acceleration equals mass times force. In the practical world, acceleration is inevitably less than mass x force. We know that friction, gravity, heat, entropic energy loss means in the real world, observed A will never be quite amount to M*F. Engineering and environmental control move real A closer to theoretical A, but it is practically impossible for real A to equal theoretical A, and ''theoretically'' impossible to exceed it. Engineering is there for a negative sum game: no amount of engineering, efficiency or insight can on yield an acceleration equal to or greater than M*A. | ||