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

The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

kevinmunger.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#11

Post by gweinberg »

qrian wrote: post #10

I tried to read many papers of Stafford Beer and cybernetics to parse some insights on complex systems to use in modern days but failed. Project Cybersyn was just a dashboard (which was revolutionary back then of course). Viable System Model was just another systems engineering diagram, which only has meaning to those who are deep into that field. At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my h…

I don't think that's true though. Isn't the purpose what it's intended to do, not what it actually does?

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#12

Post by pmichaud »

gweinberg wrote: post #11
qrian wrote: post #10

I tried to read many papers of Stafford Beer and cybernetics to parse some insights on complex systems to use in modern days but failed. Project Cybersyn was just a dashboard (which was revolutionary back then of course). Viable System Model was just another systems engineering diagram, which only has meaning to those who are deep into that field. At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my h…

I don't think that's true though. Isn't the purpose what it's intended to do, not what it actually does?

The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#13

Post by PittleyDunkin »

qrian wrote: post #10

I tried to read many papers of Stafford Beer and cybernetics to parse some insights on complex systems to use in modern days but failed. Project Cybersyn was just a dashboard (which was revolutionary back then of course). Viable System Model was just another systems engineering diagram, which only has meaning to those who are deep into that field. At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my h…

> At least I got 'The purpose of a system is what it does' stuck in my head.

Which seems like a rather odd understanding of "purpose" divorced from any possible use of the word. What is the point of talking about "purpose" if you can't persuade the person intending that purpose to change their mind? Why not talk about "use" or "effect" instead?

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#14

Post by PittleyDunkin »

pmichaud wrote: post #12
gweinberg wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true though. Isn't the purpose what it's intended to do, not what it actually does?

The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

Why not just use the correct word? It seems weird to drag in an unrelated term just to redefine it. The word "purpose" divorced from intent seems to only have the utility of confusing the reader/audience.

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#15

Post by Ma8ee »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #14
pmichaud wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

Why not just use the correct word? It seems weird to drag in an unrelated term just to redefine it. The word "purpose" divorced from intent seems to only have the utility of confusing the reader/audience.

What is the “correct” word?

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#16

Post by PittleyDunkin »

Ma8ee wrote: post #15
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just use the correct word? It seems weird to drag in an unrelated term just to redefine it. The word "purpose" divorced from intent seems to only have the utility of confusing the reader/audience.

What is the “correct” word?

...presumably not "purpose"?

> that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#17

Post by wkyleg »

The Counterfactuals of his ideas are very interesting.

Chilean socialism didn't work (just ignoring the coup, it couldn't actually run the economy), but the reasons why it failed, or in other forms could have worked bear consideration.

In short, it failed for the same reasons central planning tends to, considering modern understandings of complexity theory and ideas suggested in books such as Seeing Like A State. Just having a dashboard and greater access to information is still subject to the same forms of hubris as is general central planning, even if these shortcomings are better anticipated.

Yet, many of the innovations in this project bare similarity to how large enterprises CAN run will, such as with ERP and Business Analytics in the private sector, and modern intelligence and command and control systems in the military.

So in all, they didn't completely work, but in the way is ideas did work they were very early.

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#19

Post by dang »

Related. Others?

Stafford Beer's Cybernetic Synergy Operations Room: “You'll Be Free Hacker” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37248676 - Aug 2023 (1 comment)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34486062 - Jan 2023 (2 comments)

There were almost two internets. Then, the CIA destroyed one - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32538322 - Aug 2022 (71 comments)

Project Cybersyn and the Origins of the Big Data Nation (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29930098 - Jan 2022 (39 comments)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24764727 - Oct 2020 (114 comments)

Project Cybersyn (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24443238 - Sept 2020 (8 comments)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23343929 - May 2020 (1 comment)

Cybersyn and Allende’s Semi-Automated Luxury Socialism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21673423 - Dec 2019 (105 comments)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19487476 - March 2019 (1 comment)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19182538 - Feb 2019 (1 comment)

Project Cybersyn: Socialism Through Cybernetics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12641425 - Oct 2016 (58 comments)

The Socialist Origins of Big Data (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9052163 - Feb 2015 (16 comments)

Project Cybersyn and the origins of the Big Data nation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8417882 - Oct 2014 (13 comments)

Project Cybersyn (1971) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7398245 - March 2014 (36 comments)

Nineteen Seventy three: Stafford Beer and his Chilean brew "Cybersyn" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6037276 - July 2013 (1 comment)

Project Cybersyn, a 1971-73 Chilean Experiment in Computer-Assisted Economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4682951 - Oct 2012 (65 comments)

Computer-controlled socialist economy gets destroyed on 9/11... 1973 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3054018 - Sept 2011 (8 comments)

Project Cybersyn - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1639149 - Aug 2010 (3 comments)

Project Cybersyn: real-time computer control of a planned economy (1970-1973) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1190508 - March 2010 (33 comments)

Re: The Tragedy of Stafford Beer (2023)

#20

Post by pmichaud »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #14
pmichaud wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the aphorism is specifically to dispel the notion that the straightforward definition of “purpose” is correct here.

Why not just use the correct word? It seems weird to drag in an unrelated term just to redefine it. The word "purpose" divorced from intent seems to only have the utility of confusing the reader/audience.

I am pretty confused about why this conversation is happening, ie why this pithy little saying isn’t self explanatory, but the saying is supposed to be witty commentary.

For example, we make a system of speed limits to make roads safer, and we have a law enforcement system. We notice later that the roads are not safer, but that the police are vigorously enforcing the law and collecting the ticket profits from doing so. We ask: why does this system exist? What is the purpose of it? The naive answer is to make roads safer to drive on. The witty, savvy, cynical answer is: …

Ie the reason the system still exists in the way it does is because its real “purpose” is to be a revenue generating scheme for the police, regardless of the intent of whoever set it up in the first place, if indeed anyone did.

Post reply on HN