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

Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 92 posts

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#21

Post by hulitu »

virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

> everything "does more"

Windows 2000 GUI was much more complex than the Windows 10 or 11 GUI. Yet Windows 10 and 11 have difficulties painting the screen (glitches, black screens for a second, and so on).

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#22

Post by CuriouslyC »

pydry wrote: post #16
geysersam wrote: post #6

Nobody can convince me computerization has not improved efficiency in industrial manufacturing. But computerization has probably lead to fewer people working in manufacturing. Did overall efficiency decrease or increase?

Offshoring did 90% of that, not computers. The effect of computerization was just to keep some industrial production at home - mostly the unique kind of manufacturing where labor costs weren't dominant. I think the US is in for an epic shock in few years time when they realize just how much getting cut off from Chinese factories will hurt. Either demand for labor to substitute those Chinese factories will spike or th…

I don't think so. We have major domestic and on-shoring efforts taking place and a massive pool of migrants to draw from for cheap labor in addition to low cost collaborations with Mexico. The cost of trashy consumer goods might spike but the market would quickly supply alternatives for manufacture of important goods.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#23

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

rbanffy wrote: post #8
eru wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Stallman ain't perceived positively, either. The author clearly has an axe to grind. I haven't read enough yet to decide whether they have valid point.

I couldn’t decide whether they had a valid point or whether they were engaging in some form of parody. Seems like an extreme case of Poe’s Law.

He states, in his about[0]: "...exposing this sort of nonsense to as much popular contempt as I can muster."

It's deliberate.

I sometimes enjoy folks that write like this, and this chap genuinely seems to be an interesting guy, after my own heart, but I don't really enjoy his writing.

[0] https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/about/

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#25

Post by mcphage »

virtue3 wrote: post #17

I think this article is drastically downplaying how dramatically more complicated designs and things are now than they were before. I don't believe it's computers that are to blame; I believe it's complexity nightmare problem. We have much tighter tolerances for everything now; everything "does more" and relies on my components. Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about perf…

> Back when we used pen and paper to create military vehicles it was mostly JUST about performance and completing the objective. There wasn't thousands upon thousands of other requirements and features (whether or not this is a good thing is debatable).

It makes me wonder if this piling-on of requirements is also enabled or encouraged by computers. I agree that things are becoming more complex, but I’m thinking computers might be partially to blame for that as well.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#26

Post by AnimalMuppet »

onthecanposting wrote: post #18
flavaz wrote: post #7

A classic example of this would be how some roles require endless spreadsheets, or individual updates to a CRM tool like Pipedrive. CRM tools add a lot of overhead to what should be a simple process- letting your manager know what you’re up to.

If that bookkeeping overhead is fed into analysis and process mining to drive improvement, it might be a net gain. More often though, I see yet-another-spreadhseet applied as panacea, then it's forgotten in a few months and the process repeats over many years.

That is being fed into analysis and process mining. But nobody's doing the meta-analysis to look at the overhead of all the analysis tools, and see whether they are a net win.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#27

Post by Samtidsfobiker »

I too have wondered why it take so long to make stuff in CAD, and why even suggesting that everything should fit together the first time is laughable at best.

My theory is that computers can't do rough sketching. No CAD software suite (I think) can iterate and evalute rough ideas as fast and flexible as whiteboard pen in a meeting room can.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#28

Post by joeatwork »

Something this article leaves out is that mostly, when people are given better tools, they don’t just produce more widgets per unit time: often instead they build different (more complex, better) widgets. When I was in school I read a study about this - a design shop had N draftsmen, they introduced CAD tools anticipating reducing the staff, and when researchers went back to the shop they had the same staff, but they were designing things that wouldn’t have been practical or possible before.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#29

Post by paulsutter »

SpaceX Raptor engine was designed using a full engine combustion simulator, without which the engine would have been impossible [1]. Not to mention the rapid evolution from Raptor 1 to 3 [2]

Jet aircraft are 70% more efficient since 1967, largely from simulation [3], similar in automotive

Unclear how the NVIDIA H100 would have been designed by hand-drawing 80 billion transistors

Net-net: Computers necessary, but we need much better UIs and systems. Maybe AI will help us improve this

[1] https://youtu.be/vYA0f6R5KAI?si=SG1vLMMl8l3DuCYN

[2] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2024/04/spacex-raptor-3-engine...

[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

> Jet airliners became 70% more fuel efficient between 1967 and 2007, 40% due to improvements in engine efficiency and 30% from airframes.

Re: Computers Reduce Efficiency: Case Studies of the Solow Paradox (2023)

#30

Post by constantcrying »

It definitely is true that a design which could easily be created by hand is harder to create on a computer. The things where computers shine are actually managimg the complexity of a large and complicated systems.

What I think the article leaves unspoken (but implied) is the "curse of tools", if you give a person tools he is likely to use them, even if they might not be applicable. Meaning that someone might decide to create a complex solution to a problem, simply because the tools he has been given allow him to do so. I think it is always very important to keep in mind what has been achieved with the very limited tools of the past and the immense ingenuity of the people who worked within those limits.

Post reply on HN