Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We're building computers wrong [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#71

Post by lIIIllllIIII »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #63
mannykannot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veritasium may not have mentioned either inductance or displacement current; I don't recall. He did, however, talk about an even more abstract concept which subsumes the effect of both: the Poynting vector. Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites in considerable detail, but that does not, IMHO, make it clickbait: for someone who has some background, this could…

> Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites And considering the fact that Derek has a Ph.D. in physics education research [1] that seems like an odd mistake for him to make, unless it was intentional. As another commenter pointed out [2] Derek's content lately seems to be tailored to the maxim of "Make people believe they're thinking and they'll love you. Make th…

I remember seeing that video. It was an insta-click for me because I understand very, very little about circuits and electricity. Something that actually bugs me quite a bit.

I understood even less after watching it I think..

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#72

Post by lIIIllllIIII »

tacitusarc wrote: post #14
tronster wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm subscribed to his channel, as he's covered some great science topics in the past. I skipped this video based on the title - it doesn't tell me anything about the content and "feels" more like a plea for the video to be watched than some good science broken down. I imagine that, over time, this may shift his target audience. But if a new audience is comprised of a demographic he's aiming to reach, and it gets him…

He updated the title. I watched it when he posted it, at that time it ended in “(for AI)” I think he’s experimenting with clickbait.

I thought it was actually just native advertising for Mythic.

Besides that I think the topic is prescient; there's a company local to me in Australia called Brainchip that is doing something similar I think. Given that NNs are just a bunch of matrix multiplications it's a promising approach.

I occasionally used to watch Smarter Every Day then he started doing a lot of this stuff, I think one of them might have been for an oil or defense company which I found utterly gross and I've avoided watching the channel ever since.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#73

Post by periheli0n »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #59
periheli0n wrote: post #50

Yes, analog computing can be more efficient and faster. But there are reasons why analog was eclipsed by digital. 1. Flexibility. Reprogramming digital computation is easy and quick. 2. Robustness. One can mass-produce devices that operate in the digital domain and sell them as working as spec'd. But operate them in the analog domain, and you will work with a million snowflakes that all operate slightly differently,…

He touches on this in his first video. The workaround is we are now getting into a regime of computing where exact reproducibility is not necessary. It will take a while though. It is still quite hard to remove noise for opamp circuits.

> we are now getting into a regime of computing where exact reproducibility is not necessary.

I think that is a myth. Predictable, reproducible and explainable outcomes are the holy grail of computing, in particular in AI.

If stochasticity is desired, there are methods to inject it, with precise control of the level of stochasticity and the distribution.

This level of control is absent in analog computing. Device mismatch introduces some randomness, but it cannot be controlled in practice. Instead of adapting the randomness to the algorithm, one ends up adapting the algorithm to the randomness.

Working with analog computers is a fascinating academic exercise. For practical applications, I doubt we’ll see it compete with digital computation anytime soon.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#74

Post by BiteCode_dev »

eternityforest wrote: post #30
mastax wrote: post #21

This video discusses the history and principles of classical analog computing and then says that analog computers have energy efficiency benefits over digital computers. This can give the incorrect impression that classical analog computers are more efficient than digital computers, which is absolutely not correct. It may be true that modern analog phase-change memory AI accelerators are more efficient than their dig…

People always love to say some old lost tech is better than the modern version But it's like, a one in a thousand shot.Almost all modern tech is better with regressions lasting a decade at most. Occasionally there are rumors of some modern medical treatments being worse even though medicine as a whole improves, but mechanical and electrical stuff is much better understood and more controlled. The exception is a few s…

It depends of your criteria. E.G: old appliance are bulky, noisier and suck more juice. You could say modern ones are then better. But my mother still own stuff from decades ago, that are consistently sturdier, last longer, are easier to repair, and have a better UI.

I just bought a food slicer. The motor was connected to the saw using a very soft plastic gear. Its teeth became smooth after a month of use, rendering the machine useless, and no way to buy a new gear on the internet.

This is modern tech at work: you getter a cheaper machine, but to get there, the materials used suck. And there is no stock for replacement parts because it's expensive to keep them around.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#75

Post by [deleted] »

olliej wrote: post #60

I liked some of veritasium's older stuff but it seems to be getting more and more clickbait as time goes on (which is reasonable as it's clear that YT is his job, and YT promotes clickbait above everything else). A few people said that they "knew" it would be veritasium, but I had guessed it would be Mill computer folk :D

[deleted]

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#76

Post by eternityforest »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #74
eternityforest wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always love to say some old lost tech is better than the modern version But it's like, a one in a thousand shot.Almost all modern tech is better with regressions lasting a decade at most. Occasionally there are rumors of some modern medical treatments being worse even though medicine as a whole improves, but mechanical and electrical stuff is much better understood and more controlled. The exception is a few s…

It depends of your criteria. E.G: old appliance are bulky, noisier and suck more juice. You could say modern ones are then better. But my mother still own stuff from decades ago, that are consistently sturdier, last longer, are easier to repair, and have a better UI. I just bought a food slicer. The motor was connected to the saw using a very soft plastic gear. Its teeth became smooth after a month of use, rendering…

They're probably deep in planned obsolescence since most people will use them about 3 times in 30 years.

The more common everyday things like kettles, vacuum cleaners, toasters, etc all seem to have very good options for not much money.

I've never driven a car, but my family seems to need less trips to the mechanics by far than when I was a kid. Computers definitely seem better in every way, and of course all small electronics like tape players have been phone-ified and seem to be much more reliable.

It may well be that slicers are niche enough that consumer versions are worse.

Still, nylon gears can be very durable(Unless any ozone gets on them, that seems to kill them).

A truly modern slicer with the same crappy materials would probably be using the MCU to predict the gear temperature based on motor current and limiting the duty cycle, and it would last a long time and perform acceptably well.

Either that or they'd have some direct drive scheme for then really nice ones, or maybe even some kind of no moving parts linear motor.

Modern power tools do this all the time. They shut down or reduce power for what seems to be no reason or a minor reason, but the computer probably detected some subtle overload condition I wouldn't have. It's a bit annoying, but it makes them cheap and durable enough to not think twice about buying used.

The stuff at Wal-Mart usually sucks, but there's almost always some affordable modern version that beats the older tech.

It does seem that 3rd party gears exist though, for some slicers.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#77

Post by BiteCode_dev »

eternityforest wrote: post #76
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends of your criteria. E.G: old appliance are bulky, noisier and suck more juice. You could say modern ones are then better. But my mother still own stuff from decades ago, that are consistently sturdier, last longer, are easier to repair, and have a better UI. I just bought a food slicer. The motor was connected to the saw using a very soft plastic gear. Its teeth became smooth after a month of use, rendering…

They're probably deep in planned obsolescence since most people will use them about 3 times in 30 years. The more common everyday things like kettles, vacuum cleaners, toasters, etc all seem to have very good options for not much money. I've never driven a car, but my family seems to need less trips to the mechanics by far than when I was a kid. Computers definitely seem better in every way, and of course all small e…

I suppose there is also the problem that those same appliances were pricey at the time. Lots of cheap options today, but you get what you pay for.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#78

Post by Brian_K_White »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #67
phendrenad2 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the videos feel like a sustained form of clickbait. I keep expecting a payoff at the end of the video, but instead he sort of weaves together a grand narrative that nevertheless feel unfulfilling to my analytical mind. Take this video for instance. In the beginning he talks about analog computers and how they differ from digital computers. Then he talks about how neural networks work. Then he explains how neura…

I did like the impossible to measure the speed of light one, even though it has Smarter Every Day. Ok that one has something I can identify clearly: The way Justin (Smarter Every Day) seems to be just badly hamming up the whole "this is so weird and hard to visualize" as though to pander to the audience who are expected to be baffled by the idea being presented. That was Justin though not Veritassium. I agree with wh…

Destin not Justin sorry. Derpyderpderp.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#79

Post by LordDragonfang »

mannykannot wrote: post #66
LordDragonfang wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites And considering the fact that Derek has a Ph.D. in physics education research [1] that seems like an odd mistake for him to make, unless it was intentional. As another commenter pointed out [2] Derek's content lately seems to be tailored to the maxim of "Make people believe they're thinking and they'll love you. Make th…

You appear to have seen way more of Veritasium's videos than I have, which seems rather odd, given that you dislike them so much.

I've been following him for a long time. His videos didn't used to be this bad.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#80

Post by boxed »

l33t2328 wrote: post #70
boxed wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny. Veritasium actually has some videos talking about why he has this approach :) I saw something similar all the time as a dance teacher: explaining stuff and showing over and over made the students feel like they learned a lot. But they just didn't. It was mostly a total waste of time. I switched to showing ONCE then they had to try. Then I showed again. The speed of learning went up dramatically. The problem I…

See, I’ve heard that, but I like being challenged. I like to have to “pause and ponder” as the excellent Youtuber 3Blue1Brown puts it, but Vertiassium is just annoying.

Challenged? Or feel like you're being challenged?

It'd be nice with a real scientific test! There's a lot of subjective feeling here and not anything very solid. Veritasium at least backs up his position with his own thesis research. I find that more compelling as an argument than having a position not backed up by anything at all.

Post reply on HN